Practice Management

Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.

Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.

Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.

But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.

“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.

Most doctors deal with the “curbside consult,” many times over, and most, according to a recent Medscape survey, will dole it out. When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.

Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”

“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”

Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”

Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”

Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.

“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”

This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.

When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.  

Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.

How to stay safe when asked for advice

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”

What about friends or acquaintances, however?

Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”

The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”

Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?

In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.

The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”

Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.

This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.

“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”

Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”

The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:

• Politely decline.
• Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
• Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.

Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”

Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.

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

Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.

Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.

Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.

But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.

“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.

Most doctors deal with the “curbside consult,” many times over, and most, according to a recent Medscape survey, will dole it out. When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.

Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”

“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”

Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”

Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”

Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.

“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”

This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.

When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.  

Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.

How to stay safe when asked for advice

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”

What about friends or acquaintances, however?

Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”

The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”

Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?

In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.

The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”

Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.

This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.

“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”

Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”

The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:

• Politely decline.
• Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
• Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.

Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”

Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.

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

Stephen Pribut, DPM, a sports medicine podiatrist based in Washington, has had many friends or family members ask him for medical advice. It’s a scenario every doctor will face at one point or another in their careers, and it’s never an easy one.

Dr. Pribut received a call from a friend about a sore shoulder from swimming, saying that his doctor had dismissed the potential for a rotator cuff injury. “Months later, images revealed it was a rotator cuff tear and he wanted my advice,” says Dr. Pribut.

Not being a shoulder specialist, Dr. Pribut limited his input. “I told him to consider a good physical therapist or a shoulder specialist and gave him some alternative strokes for swimming that hopefully wouldn’t aggravate the injury,” he explains.

But he admits some situations are challenging. “I had a relative asking about a third party with an ankle injury. I advised he hold off on using a balance board until things healed, and to make sure he went to see a specialist. Unfortunately, he went to his general practitioner who likely knows nothing about ankle anatomy,” says Dr. Pribut.

“I finally saw a photo, which revealed swelling higher up on the ankle and no evidence of a hematoma – much lower than we would see in an ankle ligament injury. I would like him to see a sports podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopedist, but now I have to stay calm when the advice isn’t followed,” he says.

Most doctors deal with the “curbside consult,” many times over, and most, according to a recent Medscape survey, will dole it out. When asked, “Do you give medical advice to your friends?” 96% of respondents answered yes.

Yazan Abou-Ismail, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has often faced questions from friends and family, particularly throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. “How you respond is something all physicians need to analyze carefully,” he says. “I get questions on a regular basis, but this greatly increased with COVID.”

“Sharing general information is okay, and it’s even a requirement that we educate on such topics,” says Dr. Abou-Ismail. “But if someone knows they have COVID, for instance, and wants advice on how to proceed, it’s important to send them to their primary care physician for an evaluation rather than give them instructions on care.”

Dr. Abou-Ismail says that most “curbside consulting” equates to lack of an ethical follow-up. “If you gave medical advice without having assessed them, you’re lacking the medical history, a physical exam, and you should not be giving advice,” he says. “This applies to follow-ups, too.”

Throughout the pandemic, Dr. Abou-Ismail’s requests for advice on COVID even extended to online inquiries, often from strangers. “This is not a place to do a formal assessment,” he reminds. “But there are certain types of advice you can offer appropriately.”

Dr. Abou-Ismail considers safe advice to be simple public health messages that stay far out of specifics. Things like “don’t smoke,” or “eat a healthy diet,” and “get enough sleep,” fall into this safety zone. Even, “What is XYZ disease?” or “How do COVID vaccines work?” are topics he says he answers comfortably.

“But telling someone you need a specific treatment for a condition is inappropriate,” he explains. “This is a general way of practicing medicine – your advice should never venture into the potential of doing harm.”

This approach is exactly in line with legal advice, according to Jeff Caesar Chukwuma, founder and senior partner at Chukwuma Law Group, Miami. “It doesn’t mean that doctors should never give medical advice to friends or family, but if they do, they should make sure to take several precautions to protect both themselves and their family and friends,” he says.

When the request for medical advice from an acquaintance migrates into areas in which a physician is not a specialist, sharing recommendations gets even trickier – and more ethically questionable.  

Says Mr. Chukwuma, “Doctors should avoid giving advice in areas outside their area of expertise to lower the possibility of providing erroneous or harmful information,” he says.

How to stay safe when asked for advice

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the topic. In the Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.1, the AMA states that, “Treating oneself or a member of one’s own family poses several challenges for physicians, including concerns about professional objectivity, patient autonomy, and informed consent.”

What about friends or acquaintances, however?

Even so, some respondents voiced their concerns with the scenario. Responses like, “Due to ethics, I would prefer they go and get first, second, and third opinions,” and “Usually the medical advice is very basic first aid (often mental health first aid), and if it’s anything remotely more complicated, I direct them to the appropriate provider.”

The AMA places advising friends in the same basket as advising and treating family members or oneself. In an article appearing in the AMA Journal of Ethics, Horacio Hojman, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, weighed in: “First and foremost, patients deserve objectivity from their doctors. When a physician is emotionally involved with a patient, that physician’s objectivity can be called into question.”

Why is medical advice so thorny when dealing with friends or relatives?

In some cases, a physician might not ask a friend relevant personal questions about his or her medical history, for instance. Or the friend might not want to share details with the doctor. In either case, the lack of information exchange can lead to improper advice.

The issue of giving medical advice to friends, family, and acquaintances can also wade into legal territory. “Personally or professionally, trust is the decisive factor that puts us at ease with the people we surround ourselves with,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Nowhere is this truer than in medicine, where we approach doctors with some of the most sensitive matters in our lives and entrust our care to them, especially when the physician in question is a close friend or family member.”

Mr. Chukwuma points out that, while there are few strict legal prohibitions against doctors providing care or advice to family and friends, the AMA’s code of ethics states that such action should be reserved for rare situations, such as emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available, or for minor, not long-term problems.

This was part of the equation for Dr. Pribut when helping his mother navigate her treatment for breast cancer. “With close relatives, offering advice and help can be very hard,” he says.

“This is to protect both patients and doctors,” says Mr. Chukwuma. “Although seeking advice from a family member or friend who is a doctor may be more convenient for a patient, they run the risk of receiving inadequate care by not going in for a formal medical visit complete with tests, medical examination, and follow-up care.”

Mr. Chukwuma offers guidance on how to share medical advice ethically and legally with family, friends, and acquaintances. “First, as much as possible, speak to general medical facts and knowledge rather than comment directly on the patient’s particular situation,” he says. “In the absence of thorough examination and tests, the doctor’s knowledge of a patient’s condition is limited, therefore, you should take care not to provide seemingly definitive answers on that patient’s unique condition in situations where they can’t rely on data to back up their advice and recommendations.”

The AMA’s Journal of Ethics article shares these tips for staying on the right side of the ethical line when dealing with friends and family members:

• Politely decline.
• Offer other forms of assistance – this might help a friend find the right qualified physician – as Dr. Pribut tends to do. Maybe help in navigating the sometimes-confusing health care system.
• Don’t hesitate in an emergency – the old “is there a doctor on board,” scenario on a plane when someone is in distress is a perfectly acceptable, and recommended, time to step in, even if it is a friend or family member.

Dr. Pribut, a long-time veteran of the tricky medical waters involving friends and family, has this to offer: “Be cautious and always stay in the realm of what you know,” he says. “Always encourage people to seek an opinion from a qualified doctor. Help them find a reputable doctor if that’s useful.”

Mr. Chukwuma adds also that doctors should stand firm when pushed by a friend or family member, especially when offering advice, even if it’s in the form of general education. “The doctor should make it clear to the family member or friend that their advice in no way takes the place of actual treatment or examination by a medical professional and that, if need be, the patient should seek formal medical help from another doctor, ideally one not related to or friends with the patient,” he says.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced a new, voluntary alternative payment model, which will replace the Oncology Care Model (OCM) that ended on June 30.

The OCM’s successor, known as the Enhancing Oncology Model (EOM), will begin next year on July 1, and run for 5 years.

Like the OCM, the EOM will align payment incentives with care quality, and focus on value-based, patient-centered care for those undergoing chemotherapy based on 6-month episodes of care. The EOM will focus on health equity, and participants will include oncology practices that treat Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for seven types of cancer: breast cancer, chronic leukemia, lung cancer, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, and small intestine/colorectal cancer.

The new model will build on lessons learned from the OCM, incorporating successful elements of the previous model, such as patient navigation and care planning, and will introduce new elements, including gradually implementing electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes and activities that promote health equity.

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure noted that the EOM will “incentivize participating oncology practices – including those in rural and underserved areas – to improve the provision of high-quality, coordinated care that addresses patients’ social needs and improves patient and caregiver support.”

The goal, Ms. Brooks-LaSure added, is to address “stark inequities in the ability of people with cancer across race, gender, region, and income to access cancer screening, diagnostics, and treatment. CMS is working to advance President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot goals by helping Medicare cancer patients better navigate a challenging and often overwhelming journey.”
 

Applauds and concerns

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, and the Community Oncology Alliance all issued statements applauding the new model and the fact that it is voluntary. But they have also voiced several concerns.

The COA, for example, noted that the CMS Innovation Center plans to cut the Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments in the EOM by more than half ($70 vs $160 for the OCM), but at the same time, expects more work from practices.

While COA is “extremely supportive” of screening for health-related social needs and electronic patient-reported outcomes, “it seems unfair to burden practices with more work but pay less for it, particularly as practices are dealing with the return of the Medicare sequester cut, inflation, and ongoing COVID-19 practice challenges,” Ted Okon, executive director of COA, wrote in a statement.

COA also expressed concern with the 1-year gap between the end of the OCM and the start of EOM.

“During this time practices will have to shoulder the extensive investments and operational changes put in place to benefit patients without reimbursement,” Mr. Okon said.

ASCO echoed COA’s concerns and the ACCC expressed unease with some of the structural elements of the program.

The EOM includes two risk arrangements with different degrees of downside risk. However, requiring participants to accept downside risk from the start of the model “will be a significant barrier to enrollment given the current reimbursement landscape,” the ACCC said in a statement. This risk “may not make financial sense for smaller oncology programs, particularly those who care for underserved patients and those that have not previously participated in OCM.”

Instead, CMS should “endeavor to provide as much information on proposed payment methodologies, cost data, and benchmark amounts as early as possible so that practices can make informed decisions around participation,” the ACCC wrote.
 

An improvement over OCM?

The OCM represented the largest alternative payment model to address value-based payment for cancer care. More than 3,200 oncologists and 201 physician practices voluntarily entered the program, which lasted 6 years.

But since its implementation, studies assessing the success of the program have yielded mixed results.

A 2018 analysis, for instance, revealed that one large community practice saved Medicare $3 million over a year after adopting the OCM.

However, a 2021 study found that, while community practices experienced lower drug costs in lung and prostate cancer and lower office-based costs after implementing the program, the difference was not statistically significant when accounting for all costs.

Another analysis also revealed more mixed results, reporting cost reductions for all cancers, but also finding those savings were offset by administrative expenses. Overall, this study found the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare over 4 years.
 

Will the EOM improve upon the OCM?

According to the CMS, “the central goal of EOM is to better support patients and improve their care experience.”

Participating Physician Group Practices will take accountability for health care quality and total spending during 6-month episodes of care for Medicare patients with certain cancers.

CMS will give participants the option to bill for Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payment for services provided to eligible beneficiaries. This payment will be higher for beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

EOM participants will have the opportunity to earn a retrospective performance-based payment based on quality and savings. Participants will be required to take on downside risk from the start of the model, with the potential to owe CMS a performance-based recoupment.

EOM participants will be required to implement participant redesign activities, including 24/7 access to care, patient navigation, care planning, use of evidence-based guidelines, use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes, screening for health-related social needs, use of data for quality improvement, and use of certified electronic health record technology.

“No one should have to battle cancer without access to high-quality, coordinated care,” said Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement. “With this new Innovation Center model for oncology care, we are delivering on President Biden’s call to action to mobilize every option to address cancer, and creating a system of care that supports all patients and their families.”

A detailed payment methodology paper will be published for EOM this summer and will be available on the Innovation Center’s website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced a new, voluntary alternative payment model, which will replace the Oncology Care Model (OCM) that ended on June 30.

The OCM’s successor, known as the Enhancing Oncology Model (EOM), will begin next year on July 1, and run for 5 years.

Like the OCM, the EOM will align payment incentives with care quality, and focus on value-based, patient-centered care for those undergoing chemotherapy based on 6-month episodes of care. The EOM will focus on health equity, and participants will include oncology practices that treat Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for seven types of cancer: breast cancer, chronic leukemia, lung cancer, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, and small intestine/colorectal cancer.

The new model will build on lessons learned from the OCM, incorporating successful elements of the previous model, such as patient navigation and care planning, and will introduce new elements, including gradually implementing electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes and activities that promote health equity.

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure noted that the EOM will “incentivize participating oncology practices – including those in rural and underserved areas – to improve the provision of high-quality, coordinated care that addresses patients’ social needs and improves patient and caregiver support.”

The goal, Ms. Brooks-LaSure added, is to address “stark inequities in the ability of people with cancer across race, gender, region, and income to access cancer screening, diagnostics, and treatment. CMS is working to advance President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot goals by helping Medicare cancer patients better navigate a challenging and often overwhelming journey.”
 

Applauds and concerns

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, and the Community Oncology Alliance all issued statements applauding the new model and the fact that it is voluntary. But they have also voiced several concerns.

The COA, for example, noted that the CMS Innovation Center plans to cut the Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments in the EOM by more than half ($70 vs $160 for the OCM), but at the same time, expects more work from practices.

While COA is “extremely supportive” of screening for health-related social needs and electronic patient-reported outcomes, “it seems unfair to burden practices with more work but pay less for it, particularly as practices are dealing with the return of the Medicare sequester cut, inflation, and ongoing COVID-19 practice challenges,” Ted Okon, executive director of COA, wrote in a statement.

COA also expressed concern with the 1-year gap between the end of the OCM and the start of EOM.

“During this time practices will have to shoulder the extensive investments and operational changes put in place to benefit patients without reimbursement,” Mr. Okon said.

ASCO echoed COA’s concerns and the ACCC expressed unease with some of the structural elements of the program.

The EOM includes two risk arrangements with different degrees of downside risk. However, requiring participants to accept downside risk from the start of the model “will be a significant barrier to enrollment given the current reimbursement landscape,” the ACCC said in a statement. This risk “may not make financial sense for smaller oncology programs, particularly those who care for underserved patients and those that have not previously participated in OCM.”

Instead, CMS should “endeavor to provide as much information on proposed payment methodologies, cost data, and benchmark amounts as early as possible so that practices can make informed decisions around participation,” the ACCC wrote.
 

An improvement over OCM?

The OCM represented the largest alternative payment model to address value-based payment for cancer care. More than 3,200 oncologists and 201 physician practices voluntarily entered the program, which lasted 6 years.

But since its implementation, studies assessing the success of the program have yielded mixed results.

A 2018 analysis, for instance, revealed that one large community practice saved Medicare $3 million over a year after adopting the OCM.

However, a 2021 study found that, while community practices experienced lower drug costs in lung and prostate cancer and lower office-based costs after implementing the program, the difference was not statistically significant when accounting for all costs.

Another analysis also revealed more mixed results, reporting cost reductions for all cancers, but also finding those savings were offset by administrative expenses. Overall, this study found the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare over 4 years.
 

Will the EOM improve upon the OCM?

According to the CMS, “the central goal of EOM is to better support patients and improve their care experience.”

Participating Physician Group Practices will take accountability for health care quality and total spending during 6-month episodes of care for Medicare patients with certain cancers.

CMS will give participants the option to bill for Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payment for services provided to eligible beneficiaries. This payment will be higher for beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

EOM participants will have the opportunity to earn a retrospective performance-based payment based on quality and savings. Participants will be required to take on downside risk from the start of the model, with the potential to owe CMS a performance-based recoupment.

EOM participants will be required to implement participant redesign activities, including 24/7 access to care, patient navigation, care planning, use of evidence-based guidelines, use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes, screening for health-related social needs, use of data for quality improvement, and use of certified electronic health record technology.

“No one should have to battle cancer without access to high-quality, coordinated care,” said Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement. “With this new Innovation Center model for oncology care, we are delivering on President Biden’s call to action to mobilize every option to address cancer, and creating a system of care that supports all patients and their families.”

A detailed payment methodology paper will be published for EOM this summer and will be available on the Innovation Center’s website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced a new, voluntary alternative payment model, which will replace the Oncology Care Model (OCM) that ended on June 30.

The OCM’s successor, known as the Enhancing Oncology Model (EOM), will begin next year on July 1, and run for 5 years.

Like the OCM, the EOM will align payment incentives with care quality, and focus on value-based, patient-centered care for those undergoing chemotherapy based on 6-month episodes of care. The EOM will focus on health equity, and participants will include oncology practices that treat Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for seven types of cancer: breast cancer, chronic leukemia, lung cancer, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate cancer, and small intestine/colorectal cancer.

The new model will build on lessons learned from the OCM, incorporating successful elements of the previous model, such as patient navigation and care planning, and will introduce new elements, including gradually implementing electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes and activities that promote health equity.

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure noted that the EOM will “incentivize participating oncology practices – including those in rural and underserved areas – to improve the provision of high-quality, coordinated care that addresses patients’ social needs and improves patient and caregiver support.”

The goal, Ms. Brooks-LaSure added, is to address “stark inequities in the ability of people with cancer across race, gender, region, and income to access cancer screening, diagnostics, and treatment. CMS is working to advance President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot goals by helping Medicare cancer patients better navigate a challenging and often overwhelming journey.”
 

Applauds and concerns

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, and the Community Oncology Alliance all issued statements applauding the new model and the fact that it is voluntary. But they have also voiced several concerns.

The COA, for example, noted that the CMS Innovation Center plans to cut the Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments in the EOM by more than half ($70 vs $160 for the OCM), but at the same time, expects more work from practices.

While COA is “extremely supportive” of screening for health-related social needs and electronic patient-reported outcomes, “it seems unfair to burden practices with more work but pay less for it, particularly as practices are dealing with the return of the Medicare sequester cut, inflation, and ongoing COVID-19 practice challenges,” Ted Okon, executive director of COA, wrote in a statement.

COA also expressed concern with the 1-year gap between the end of the OCM and the start of EOM.

“During this time practices will have to shoulder the extensive investments and operational changes put in place to benefit patients without reimbursement,” Mr. Okon said.

ASCO echoed COA’s concerns and the ACCC expressed unease with some of the structural elements of the program.

The EOM includes two risk arrangements with different degrees of downside risk. However, requiring participants to accept downside risk from the start of the model “will be a significant barrier to enrollment given the current reimbursement landscape,” the ACCC said in a statement. This risk “may not make financial sense for smaller oncology programs, particularly those who care for underserved patients and those that have not previously participated in OCM.”

Instead, CMS should “endeavor to provide as much information on proposed payment methodologies, cost data, and benchmark amounts as early as possible so that practices can make informed decisions around participation,” the ACCC wrote.
 

An improvement over OCM?

The OCM represented the largest alternative payment model to address value-based payment for cancer care. More than 3,200 oncologists and 201 physician practices voluntarily entered the program, which lasted 6 years.

But since its implementation, studies assessing the success of the program have yielded mixed results.

A 2018 analysis, for instance, revealed that one large community practice saved Medicare $3 million over a year after adopting the OCM.

However, a 2021 study found that, while community practices experienced lower drug costs in lung and prostate cancer and lower office-based costs after implementing the program, the difference was not statistically significant when accounting for all costs.

Another analysis also revealed more mixed results, reporting cost reductions for all cancers, but also finding those savings were offset by administrative expenses. Overall, this study found the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare over 4 years.
 

Will the EOM improve upon the OCM?

According to the CMS, “the central goal of EOM is to better support patients and improve their care experience.”

Participating Physician Group Practices will take accountability for health care quality and total spending during 6-month episodes of care for Medicare patients with certain cancers.

CMS will give participants the option to bill for Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payment for services provided to eligible beneficiaries. This payment will be higher for beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

EOM participants will have the opportunity to earn a retrospective performance-based payment based on quality and savings. Participants will be required to take on downside risk from the start of the model, with the potential to owe CMS a performance-based recoupment.

EOM participants will be required to implement participant redesign activities, including 24/7 access to care, patient navigation, care planning, use of evidence-based guidelines, use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes, screening for health-related social needs, use of data for quality improvement, and use of certified electronic health record technology.

“No one should have to battle cancer without access to high-quality, coordinated care,” said Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement. “With this new Innovation Center model for oncology care, we are delivering on President Biden’s call to action to mobilize every option to address cancer, and creating a system of care that supports all patients and their families.”

A detailed payment methodology paper will be published for EOM this summer and will be available on the Innovation Center’s website.

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Consumers, employers, and just about everyone else interested in health care prices will soon get an unprecedented look at what insurers pay for care, perhaps helping answer a question that has long dogged those who buy insurance: Are we getting the best deal we can?

As of July 1, health insurers and self-insured employers must post on websites just about every price they’ve negotiated with providers for health care services, item by item. About the only thing excluded are the prices paid for prescription drugs, except those administered in hospitals or doctors’ offices.

The federally required data release could affect future prices or even how employers contract for health care. Many will see for the first time how well their insurers are doing, compared with others.

The new rules are far broader than those that went into effect in 2021 requiring hospitals to post their negotiated rates for the public to see. Now insurers must post the amounts paid for “every physician in network, every hospital, every surgery center, every nursing facility,” said Jeffrey Leibach, a partner at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

“When you start doing the math, you’re talking trillions of records,” he said. The fines the federal government could impose for noncompliance are also heftier than the penalties that hospitals face.

Federal officials learned from the hospital experience and gave insurers more direction on what was expected, said Mr. Leibach. Insurers or self-insured employers could be fined as much as $100 a day for each violation, for each affected enrollee if they fail to provide the data.

“Get your calculator out: All of a sudden you are in the millions pretty fast,” Mr. Leibach said.

Determined consumers, especially those with high-deductible health plans, may try to dig in right away and use the data to try comparing what they will have to pay at different hospitals, clinics, or doctor offices for specific services.

But each database’s enormous size may mean that most people “will find it very hard to use the data in a nuanced way,” said Katherine Baicker, dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

At least at first.

Entrepreneurs are expected to quickly translate the information into more user-friendly formats so it can be incorporated into new or existing services that estimate costs for patients. And starting Jan. 1, the rules require insurers to provide online tools that will help people get up-front cost estimates for about 500 so-called “shoppable” services, meaning medical care they can schedule ahead of time.

Once those things happen, “you’ll at least have the options in front of you,” said Chris Severn, CEO of Turquoise Health, an online company that has posted price information made available under the rules for hospitals, although many hospitals have yet to comply.

With the addition of the insurers’ data, sites like his will be able to drill down further into cost variation from one place to another or among insurers.

“If you’re going to get an x-ray, you will be able to see that you can do it for $250 at this hospital, $75 at the imaging center down the road, or your specialist can do it in office for $25,” he said.

Everyone will know everyone else’s business: for example, how much insurers Aetna and Humana pay the same surgery center for a knee replacement.

The requirements stem from the Affordable Care Act and a 2019 executive order by then-President Donald Trump.

“These plans are supposed to be acting on behalf of employers in negotiating good rates, and the little insight we have on that shows it has not happened,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, president and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, an affiliation of employers who offer job-based health benefits to workers. “I do believe the dynamics are going to change.”

Other observers are more circumspect.

“Maybe at best this will reduce the wide variance of prices out there,” said Zack Cooper, director of health policy at the Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies, New Haven, Conn. “But it won’t be unleashing a consumer revolution.”

Still, the biggest value of the July data release may well be to shed light on how successful insurers have been at negotiating prices. It comes on the heels of research that has shown tremendous variation in what is paid for health care. A recent study by Rand, for example, shows that employers that offer job-based insurance plans paid, on average, 224% more than Medicare for the same services.

Tens of thousands of employers who buy insurance coverage for their workers will get this more-complete pricing picture – and may not like what they see.

“What we’re learning from the hospital data is that insurers are really bad at negotiating,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor in the department of health policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, Baltimore, citing research that found that negotiated rates for hospital care can be higher than what the facilities accept from patients who are not using insurance and are paying cash.

That could add to the frustration that Ms. Mitchell and others say employers have with the current health insurance system. More might try to contract with providers directly, only using insurance companies for claims processing.

Other employers may bring their insurers back to the bargaining table.

“For the first time, an employer will be able to go to an insurance company and say: ‘You have not negotiated a good-enough deal, and we know that because we can see the same provider has negotiated a better deal with another company,’ ” said James Gelfand, president of the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group of self-insured employers.

If that happens, he added, “patients will be able to save money.”

That’s not necessarily a given, however.

Because this kind of public release of pricing data hasn’t been tried widely in health care before, how it will affect future spending remains uncertain. If insurers are pushed back to the bargaining table or providers see where they stand relative to their peers, prices could drop. However, some providers could raise their prices if they see they are charging less than their peers.

“Downward pressure may not be a given,” said Kelley Schultz, vice president of commercial policy for AHIP, the industry’s trade lobby.

Ms. Baicker said that, even after the data is out, rates will continue to be heavily influenced by local conditions, such as the size of an insurer or employer – providers often give bigger discounts, for example, to the insurers or self-insured employers that can send them the most patients. The number of hospitals in a region also matters – if an area has only one, for instance, that usually means the facility can demand higher rates.

Another unknown: Will insurers meet the deadline and provide usable data?

Ms. Schultz, at AHIP, said the industry is well on the way, partly because the original deadline was extended by 6 months. She expects insurers to do better than the hospital industry. “We saw a lot of hospitals that just decided not to post files or make them difficult to find,” she said.

So far, more than 300 noncompliant hospitals received warning letters from the government. But they could face fines of $300 a day fines for failing to comply, which is less than what insurers potentially face, although the federal government has recently upped the ante to up to $5,500 a day for the largest facilities.

Even after the pricing data is public, “I don’t think things will change overnight,” said Mr. Leibach. “Patients are still going to make care decisions based on their doctors and referrals, a lot of reasons other than price.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

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

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

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

Republican and Democratic members of the House called for changes in how insurer-run Medicare plans manage the prior authorization process, following testimony from a federal watchdog organization about improper denials of payment for care.

About 18% of payment denials in a sample examined by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) either met Medicare coverage rules or the rules of the insurance plan.

As such, they should not have been denied, according to the OIG. That was the finding of an April OIG report, based on a sample of 2019 denials from large insurer-run Medicare plans.

Erin Bliss, an assistant inspector general with the OIG, appeared as a witness at a June 28 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing to discuss this investigation and other issues with prior authorization and insurer-run Medicare, also known as the Advantage plans.

Most of these payment denials of appropriate services were due to human error during manual claims-processing reviews, Ms. Bliss told the subcommittee, such as overlooking a document, and to system processing errors, such as a Medicare insurance plan failing to program or update a system correctly.

In many cases, these denials were reversed, but patient care was still disrupted and clinicians lost time chasing clearances for services that plans already had covered, Ms. Bliss said in her testimony.

The April report was not the OIG’s first look into concerns about insurer-run plans inappropriately denying care through prior authorizations. The OIG in 2018 reported that insurer-run Medicare plans overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-2016 when patients and clinicians appealed these decisions, overturning approximately 216,000 denials each year.

‘Numerous hoops’ unnecessary for doctors, patients

Lawmakers at the hearing supported the idea of the need for prior authorization as a screening tool to prevent unneeded care.

But they chided insurance companies for their execution of this process, with clinicians and patients often frustrated by complex steps needed. Medicare Advantage plans sometimes require prior authorization for “relatively standard medical services,” said Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

“Our seniors and their doctors should not be required to jump through numerous hoops to ensure coverage for straightforward and medically necessary procedures,” Rep. DeGette said.

Several lawmakers spoke at the hearing about the need for changes to prior authorization, including calling for action on a pending bill intended to compel insurers to streamline the review process. The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021 already has attracted more than 300 bipartisan sponsors. A companion Senate bill has more than 30 sponsors.

The bill’s aim is to shift this process away from faxes and phone calls while also encouraging plans to adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians. The bill calls for the establishment of an electronic prior authorization program that could issue real-time decisions.

“The result will be less administrative burden for providers and more information in the hands of patients. It will allow more patients to receive care when they need it, reducing the likelihood of additional, often more severe complications,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) who is among the active sponsors of the bill.

“In the long term, I believe it would also result in cost savings for the health care system at large by identifying problems earlier and getting them treated before their patients have more complications,” Rep. Bucshon added.
 

Finding ‘room for improvement’ for prior authorizations

There’s strong bipartisan support in Congress for insurer-run Medicare, which has grown by 10% per year over the last several years and has doubled since 2010, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). About 27 million people are now enrolled in these plans.

But for that reason, insurer-run Medicare may also need more careful watching, lawmakers made clear at the hearing.

“We’ve heard quite a bit of evidence today that there is room for improvement,” said Rep. Bucshon, a strong supporter of insurer-run Medicare, which can offer patients added benefits such as dental coverage.

Rep. Ann Kuster (D-N.H.) said simplifying prior authorization would reduce stress on clinicians already dealing with burnout.

“They’re just so tired of all this paperwork and red tape,” Rep. Kuster said. “In 2022 can’t we at least consider electronic prior authorization?”

At the hearing, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, (R-Tex.) noted that his home state already has taken a step toward reducing the burden of prior authorization with its “gold card” program.

In 2021, a new Texas law called on the state department of insurance to develop rules to require health plans to provide an exemption from preauthorization requirements for a particular health care service if the issuer has approved, or would have approved, at least 90% of the preauthorization requests submitted by the physician or provider for that service. The law also mandates that a physician participating in a peer-to-peer review on behalf of a health benefit plan issuer must be a Texas-licensed physician who has the same or similar specialty as the physician or clinician requesting the service, according to the state insurance department.

Separately, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the sponsor of the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, told the American Medical Association in a recent interview that she expects the House Ways and Means Committee, on which she serves, to mark up her bill in July. (A mark-up is the process by which a House or Senate committee considers and often amends a bill and then sends it to the chamber’s leadership for a floor vote.)

In a statement issued about the hearing, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) noted that there has been work in recent years toward streamlining prior authorization. AHIP said it launched the Fast Prior Authorization Technology Highway (Fast PATH) initiative in 2020 to study electronic procedures for handling these reviews.

“The findings of this study showed that ePA delivered improvements with a strong majority of experienced providers reporting faster time to patient care, fewer phone calls and faxes, better understanding of [prior authorization] requirements, and faster time to decisions,” AHIP said.

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

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician stress – indeed, the stress level for all medical personnel – has reached new heights.

As if it weren’t enough that doctors work in a profession where it’s almost more a question of when they’ll be sued than if they’ll be sued – where COVID, staff shortages, long hours, and patients frustrated over canceled procedures have caused unrelenting fatigue and stress – they now have to worry that an unhappy patient is going to buy a gun, walk into their office, and kill them.

That’s exactly what happened in Tulsa, Okla., where a patient complaining of pain after back surgery murdered his doctor and several others who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

The temptation in the aftermath of such tragedies is to think about preventive measures: Make medical facilities “hardened” targets, like schools have become, with armed guards, metal detectors, automatically locking doors, physical barriers within, security cameras, and buzzers for entry – although hardening a large medical center where members of the community routinely come and go would be challenging.

What about the enormous stress on doctors, nurses, and others in the medical workplace? Physicians who have been sued for malpractice often describe how it changes the way they interact with patients: They now size patients up and make judgments about their potential litigiousness. Will the physicians now look over their patients’ shoulders at the video feed from a security camera when they’re taking a history? Will medical professionals be forced to make snap judgments about patients’ psychological state before deciding whether to treat them?

Remember, there was a time when school shootings were unimaginable. Once one person crosses that line, others inevitably follow.

It could be a drug-seeking patient complaining of ongoing pain, angry because he can’t get a new prescription. It could be a patient whose unpaid bill was turned over to a collection agency, angry because he’s now getting calls from collectors. It could be someone who blames a physician for the loss of a loved one. It could be someone who would otherwise have filed a lawsuit, who now thinks he has a more effective option for exacting retribution.

Most of us would find it unbearable to live and work under the kind of stress faced by medical professionals today. And unfortunately, there is no short-term, systemic relief on the horizon. But there are methods of relieving at least some of the psychological burden being carried by these dedicated individuals.

For starters, the government should provide funds to improve safety and security at medical facilities. It’s sad but it’s a fact of life. The physical structure of schools, along with emergency procedures, have been changed since Columbine and Sandy Hook, and our children and their teachers undergo active shooter drills. Health care facilities will need to adopt similar strategies.

But if we don’t also support the individuals who work in health care, we’ll no longer have even partially staffed health care facilities. Hospitals and medical groups need to be conscious of the effects stress may have on them. Medical staff and administrators need to recognize changes in their colleagues’ behavior and refer those cohorts to professional stress coaches who can get them back on track.

Medical personnel should be picking up on warning signs, like irritability, depression, sudden weight gain or loss, lack of motivation and job satisfaction, obsessiveness, unusual levels of fatigue, alcohol or drug use, and, of course, avoidable medical errors.

In addition, colleagues in the medical workplace need to know each other well. They are usually the first ones to notice if something is off and may be in the best position to refer coworkers for help. Also, medical malpractice insurance carriers should consider encouraging and covering coaching sessions, because helping physicians cope with this heightened stress will prevent medical errors and the lawsuits that inevitably accompany mistakes.

This needn’t be a long-term process like ongoing psychotherapy; a few sessions with a well-trained coach may help psychologically challenged peers restore their focus and perspective. It won’t eliminate the threat any more than litigation stress coaching eliminates the threat of being sued, but it can prevent that stress from leading to avoidable errors. It also can prevent physicians’ personal lives and relationships from going off the rails and driving them out of the medical profession.

None of us can afford to ignore the impacts that these new stressors are having and simply act as if it’s business as usual. The people in the trenches need our help.

Ms. Fiore is President of Winning Focus in Murrysville, Pa. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, just 4 months before the start of a new residency cycle. Referred to as “COVID interns,” PGY-1 residents transitioning out of medical school in 2020 faced an unprecedented challenge of doctoring within a confused and ill-prepared health care system, while senior residents scrambled to adjust to their rapidly changing training programs. Each subsequent week brought more sobering news of increasing hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths; hospitals across the country resorted to the redeployment of residents across all specialties to buffer the growing need within their internal medicine and critical care units.¹ And while the news and social media blurred into a collage of ventilator shortages, politicization of science, and “#healthcareheroes,” one study showed53.7% of medical interns (N=108) were struggling with mild to extremely severe depression, while 63.9% reported mild to severe anxiety.²

Many shortcomings of our health care system—ill preparedness, racial disparity, health illiteracy—were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and providers’ mental health was no exception.³ Classic psychosocial risk factors, such as high demands, lack of control, lack of institutional support, and absence of reward defined the workplace, leading Theorell⁴ to call it “a randomized trial for maximal worsening of the work environment.” Stress and burnout during residency are not novel concepts. A 2002 survey including 415 medical residency programs with a response from more than 4000 residents found depressive symptoms in 35% of respondents, paired with feelings of increased cynicism and decreased humanism despite major curricular reforms and duty hour limitations.⁵ Unfortunately, the statistics in the coming years hardly budged and, in the wake of the pandemic, culminated to more than 50% to 76% of physicians worldwide reporting burnout in 2020.^6-8

As a COVID intern at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts), I also experienced the demanding workload and witnessed the struggle of my colleagues firsthand. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, similar to many of its peer institutions, implemented frequent mental health check-ins within its curriculum. Known as the Intern Humanistic Curriculum, these check-ins essentially were an echo chamber to unload the psychological burdens of our workdays, and we eagerly shared what made us angry, sad, hopeful, and hopeless. During one such session, I learned about moral injury, a term originating in the military defined as the psychological stress resulting from actions—or the lack of actions—that violates one’s moral or ethical code.⁹ With the onslaught of patient deaths for which most of us felt unprepared, we had all endured varying degrees of moral injury. Greenberg et al⁹ described 2 potential outcomes after moral injury: (1) the development of mental health disorders such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, or (2) posttraumatic growth, which is the bolstering of psychological resilience. Notably, the outcome is based on the way someone is supported before, during, and after the challenging incident.⁹

With the aim of psychological growth and developing resilience, residents should prioritize mental health throughout their training. To this end, several resources are readily available, many of which I actively use or frequently revisit, which are reviewed here.

Mindfulness Meditation App

Calm (https://www.calm.com/) is one of several popular mobile applications (apps) that delivers mindfulness mediation—the practice of attending to experiences, thoughts, and emotions without bias or judgment. With more than 100 million downloads, Calm includes meditation tutorials, breathing exercises, nature scenes and sounds, and audio programs taught by mindfulness experts for $69.99 a year or $14.99 a month. Systemic reviews have demonstrated reduced sleep disturbance, decreased ruminative thoughts and emotional reactivity, and increased awareness and acceptance in those practicing mindfulness meditation. Calm users have reported these benefits, with many able to forego the time- and cost-intensive cognitive behavioral therapy that requires highly trained therapists.^10-12

Exercise to Relieve Stress

Both aerobic and anaerobic exercises are antidepressive and anxiolytic and also lower one’s overall sensitivity to stress. Whether it is governed by neurotransmitters such as the activation of the opioid systems or the release of endogenous endorphins or time spent focusing on a different task at hand, the benefits of exercise against mental stressors have been extensively studied and established.¹³ Consider obtaining a new gym membership at the start of residency or joining an intramural team. Both have the added benefit of expanding your social circle.

Socialize With Others

Social isolation and perceived loneliness are key stressors linked to neuroendocrine disturbances that underlie depression, anxiety, and even schizophrenia.^14,15 Throughout residency there will be several social events and opportunities to gather with colleagues—inside or outside of the work environment—and residents should attend as time allows. Even virtual social interactions were found to reduce stress and help in the treatment of social anxiety disorder.¹⁴

 

 

Communicate About Stressors

Open up to your co-residents, friends, and family about any struggles that may be invisible on the outside. Even attendings can empathize with the struggles of residency, and the mentors in place are actively trained to prioritize resident wellness. If verbal communication is not your strength, try journaling. Writing helps to untangle and better define underlying stressors and is itself meditative.^16,17 However, ensure that your journaling is focused on positive emotional responses and aims to determine the positive benefits within any stressful event; those solely expressing negative emotions were found to have higher levels of stress and anxiety afterward than they had before.¹⁷

Seek a Mental Health Specialist

As with all other human ailments, severe mental health disorders require specialists and proper medication. Unfortunately, substantial stigma accompanying mental health continues to permeate medicine, creating considerable barriers for residents in need of care.¹⁸ A 2016 survey of more than 2000 physicians found that those with mental illnesses did not seek treatment due to limited time, fear of being reported to a medical licensing board, concern over obtaining licensure, and shame or embarrassment at the diagnosis.¹⁹ Besides urging residents to seek care, more effort should be invested in addressing the stigma and ensuring confidentiality. In 2021, the internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residency at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (Aurora, Colorado) developed a confidential opt-out, rather than opt-in, mental health program, and appointments were made for all 80 interns in advance. In doing so, they found increased participation and self-reported wellness at a relatively low cost and simple implementation.²⁰ For trainees without such access, online or mobile therapy platforms offering electronic mental health treatment or telepsychiatry also have been employed.^21,22 The onus ultimately is still on the individual to seek the care they need. Although only an anecdotal piece of evidence, I have found the prevalence of physicians taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as escitalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine to be strikingly common and quite beneficial.

Final Thoughts

Residency remains rife with financial, emotional, and physical stressors; even as the dust settles on the COVID-19 pandemic, the light shed on the importance of trainee mental health must remain illuminated. For the aforementioned resources to have an impact, residents need to be empowered to openly discuss mental health issues and to seek help if necessary. Finally, in 2018, the Journal of Graduate Medical Education published a 10-year prospective cohort study that found that emotional distress during residency persists in professional practice even 10 years after residency and is associated with future burnout.²³ Trainees should consider prioritizing their mental health to not only improve their quality of life in the present but also as an investment for their future.

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, just 4 months before the start of a new residency cycle. Referred to as “COVID interns,” PGY-1 residents transitioning out of medical school in 2020 faced an unprecedented challenge of doctoring within a confused and ill-prepared health care system, while senior residents scrambled to adjust to their rapidly changing training programs. Each subsequent week brought more sobering news of increasing hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths; hospitals across the country resorted to the redeployment of residents across all specialties to buffer the growing need within their internal medicine and critical care units.¹ And while the news and social media blurred into a collage of ventilator shortages, politicization of science, and “#healthcareheroes,” one study showed53.7% of medical interns (N=108) were struggling with mild to extremely severe depression, while 63.9% reported mild to severe anxiety.²

Many shortcomings of our health care system—ill preparedness, racial disparity, health illiteracy—were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and providers’ mental health was no exception.³ Classic psychosocial risk factors, such as high demands, lack of control, lack of institutional support, and absence of reward defined the workplace, leading Theorell⁴ to call it “a randomized trial for maximal worsening of the work environment.” Stress and burnout during residency are not novel concepts. A 2002 survey including 415 medical residency programs with a response from more than 4000 residents found depressive symptoms in 35% of respondents, paired with feelings of increased cynicism and decreased humanism despite major curricular reforms and duty hour limitations.⁵ Unfortunately, the statistics in the coming years hardly budged and, in the wake of the pandemic, culminated to more than 50% to 76% of physicians worldwide reporting burnout in 2020.^6-8

As a COVID intern at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts), I also experienced the demanding workload and witnessed the struggle of my colleagues firsthand. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, similar to many of its peer institutions, implemented frequent mental health check-ins within its curriculum. Known as the Intern Humanistic Curriculum, these check-ins essentially were an echo chamber to unload the psychological burdens of our workdays, and we eagerly shared what made us angry, sad, hopeful, and hopeless. During one such session, I learned about moral injury, a term originating in the military defined as the psychological stress resulting from actions—or the lack of actions—that violates one’s moral or ethical code.⁹ With the onslaught of patient deaths for which most of us felt unprepared, we had all endured varying degrees of moral injury. Greenberg et al⁹ described 2 potential outcomes after moral injury: (1) the development of mental health disorders such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, or (2) posttraumatic growth, which is the bolstering of psychological resilience. Notably, the outcome is based on the way someone is supported before, during, and after the challenging incident.⁹

With the aim of psychological growth and developing resilience, residents should prioritize mental health throughout their training. To this end, several resources are readily available, many of which I actively use or frequently revisit, which are reviewed here.

Mindfulness Meditation App

Calm (https://www.calm.com/) is one of several popular mobile applications (apps) that delivers mindfulness mediation—the practice of attending to experiences, thoughts, and emotions without bias or judgment. With more than 100 million downloads, Calm includes meditation tutorials, breathing exercises, nature scenes and sounds, and audio programs taught by mindfulness experts for $69.99 a year or $14.99 a month. Systemic reviews have demonstrated reduced sleep disturbance, decreased ruminative thoughts and emotional reactivity, and increased awareness and acceptance in those practicing mindfulness meditation. Calm users have reported these benefits, with many able to forego the time- and cost-intensive cognitive behavioral therapy that requires highly trained therapists.^10-12

Exercise to Relieve Stress

Both aerobic and anaerobic exercises are antidepressive and anxiolytic and also lower one’s overall sensitivity to stress. Whether it is governed by neurotransmitters such as the activation of the opioid systems or the release of endogenous endorphins or time spent focusing on a different task at hand, the benefits of exercise against mental stressors have been extensively studied and established.¹³ Consider obtaining a new gym membership at the start of residency or joining an intramural team. Both have the added benefit of expanding your social circle.

Socialize With Others

Social isolation and perceived loneliness are key stressors linked to neuroendocrine disturbances that underlie depression, anxiety, and even schizophrenia.^14,15 Throughout residency there will be several social events and opportunities to gather with colleagues—inside or outside of the work environment—and residents should attend as time allows. Even virtual social interactions were found to reduce stress and help in the treatment of social anxiety disorder.¹⁴

 

 

Communicate About Stressors

Open up to your co-residents, friends, and family about any struggles that may be invisible on the outside. Even attendings can empathize with the struggles of residency, and the mentors in place are actively trained to prioritize resident wellness. If verbal communication is not your strength, try journaling. Writing helps to untangle and better define underlying stressors and is itself meditative.^16,17 However, ensure that your journaling is focused on positive emotional responses and aims to determine the positive benefits within any stressful event; those solely expressing negative emotions were found to have higher levels of stress and anxiety afterward than they had before.¹⁷

Seek a Mental Health Specialist

As with all other human ailments, severe mental health disorders require specialists and proper medication. Unfortunately, substantial stigma accompanying mental health continues to permeate medicine, creating considerable barriers for residents in need of care.¹⁸ A 2016 survey of more than 2000 physicians found that those with mental illnesses did not seek treatment due to limited time, fear of being reported to a medical licensing board, concern over obtaining licensure, and shame or embarrassment at the diagnosis.¹⁹ Besides urging residents to seek care, more effort should be invested in addressing the stigma and ensuring confidentiality. In 2021, the internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residency at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (Aurora, Colorado) developed a confidential opt-out, rather than opt-in, mental health program, and appointments were made for all 80 interns in advance. In doing so, they found increased participation and self-reported wellness at a relatively low cost and simple implementation.²⁰ For trainees without such access, online or mobile therapy platforms offering electronic mental health treatment or telepsychiatry also have been employed.^21,22 The onus ultimately is still on the individual to seek the care they need. Although only an anecdotal piece of evidence, I have found the prevalence of physicians taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as escitalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine to be strikingly common and quite beneficial.

Final Thoughts

Residency remains rife with financial, emotional, and physical stressors; even as the dust settles on the COVID-19 pandemic, the light shed on the importance of trainee mental health must remain illuminated. For the aforementioned resources to have an impact, residents need to be empowered to openly discuss mental health issues and to seek help if necessary. Finally, in 2018, the Journal of Graduate Medical Education published a 10-year prospective cohort study that found that emotional distress during residency persists in professional practice even 10 years after residency and is associated with future burnout.²³ Trainees should consider prioritizing their mental health to not only improve their quality of life in the present but also as an investment for their future.

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, just 4 months before the start of a new residency cycle. Referred to as “COVID interns,” PGY-1 residents transitioning out of medical school in 2020 faced an unprecedented challenge of doctoring within a confused and ill-prepared health care system, while senior residents scrambled to adjust to their rapidly changing training programs. Each subsequent week brought more sobering news of increasing hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths; hospitals across the country resorted to the redeployment of residents across all specialties to buffer the growing need within their internal medicine and critical care units.¹ And while the news and social media blurred into a collage of ventilator shortages, politicization of science, and “#healthcareheroes,” one study showed53.7% of medical interns (N=108) were struggling with mild to extremely severe depression, while 63.9% reported mild to severe anxiety.²

Many shortcomings of our health care system—ill preparedness, racial disparity, health illiteracy—were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and providers’ mental health was no exception.³ Classic psychosocial risk factors, such as high demands, lack of control, lack of institutional support, and absence of reward defined the workplace, leading Theorell⁴ to call it “a randomized trial for maximal worsening of the work environment.” Stress and burnout during residency are not novel concepts. A 2002 survey including 415 medical residency programs with a response from more than 4000 residents found depressive symptoms in 35% of respondents, paired with feelings of increased cynicism and decreased humanism despite major curricular reforms and duty hour limitations.⁵ Unfortunately, the statistics in the coming years hardly budged and, in the wake of the pandemic, culminated to more than 50% to 76% of physicians worldwide reporting burnout in 2020.^6-8

As a COVID intern at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts), I also experienced the demanding workload and witnessed the struggle of my colleagues firsthand. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, similar to many of its peer institutions, implemented frequent mental health check-ins within its curriculum. Known as the Intern Humanistic Curriculum, these check-ins essentially were an echo chamber to unload the psychological burdens of our workdays, and we eagerly shared what made us angry, sad, hopeful, and hopeless. During one such session, I learned about moral injury, a term originating in the military defined as the psychological stress resulting from actions—or the lack of actions—that violates one’s moral or ethical code.⁹ With the onslaught of patient deaths for which most of us felt unprepared, we had all endured varying degrees of moral injury. Greenberg et al⁹ described 2 potential outcomes after moral injury: (1) the development of mental health disorders such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, or (2) posttraumatic growth, which is the bolstering of psychological resilience. Notably, the outcome is based on the way someone is supported before, during, and after the challenging incident.⁹

With the aim of psychological growth and developing resilience, residents should prioritize mental health throughout their training. To this end, several resources are readily available, many of which I actively use or frequently revisit, which are reviewed here.

Mindfulness Meditation App

Calm (https://www.calm.com/) is one of several popular mobile applications (apps) that delivers mindfulness mediation—the practice of attending to experiences, thoughts, and emotions without bias or judgment. With more than 100 million downloads, Calm includes meditation tutorials, breathing exercises, nature scenes and sounds, and audio programs taught by mindfulness experts for $69.99 a year or $14.99 a month. Systemic reviews have demonstrated reduced sleep disturbance, decreased ruminative thoughts and emotional reactivity, and increased awareness and acceptance in those practicing mindfulness meditation. Calm users have reported these benefits, with many able to forego the time- and cost-intensive cognitive behavioral therapy that requires highly trained therapists.^10-12

Exercise to Relieve Stress

Both aerobic and anaerobic exercises are antidepressive and anxiolytic and also lower one’s overall sensitivity to stress. Whether it is governed by neurotransmitters such as the activation of the opioid systems or the release of endogenous endorphins or time spent focusing on a different task at hand, the benefits of exercise against mental stressors have been extensively studied and established.¹³ Consider obtaining a new gym membership at the start of residency or joining an intramural team. Both have the added benefit of expanding your social circle.

Socialize With Others

Social isolation and perceived loneliness are key stressors linked to neuroendocrine disturbances that underlie depression, anxiety, and even schizophrenia.^14,15 Throughout residency there will be several social events and opportunities to gather with colleagues—inside or outside of the work environment—and residents should attend as time allows. Even virtual social interactions were found to reduce stress and help in the treatment of social anxiety disorder.¹⁴

 

 

Communicate About Stressors

Open up to your co-residents, friends, and family about any struggles that may be invisible on the outside. Even attendings can empathize with the struggles of residency, and the mentors in place are actively trained to prioritize resident wellness. If verbal communication is not your strength, try journaling. Writing helps to untangle and better define underlying stressors and is itself meditative.^16,17 However, ensure that your journaling is focused on positive emotional responses and aims to determine the positive benefits within any stressful event; those solely expressing negative emotions were found to have higher levels of stress and anxiety afterward than they had before.¹⁷

Seek a Mental Health Specialist

As with all other human ailments, severe mental health disorders require specialists and proper medication. Unfortunately, substantial stigma accompanying mental health continues to permeate medicine, creating considerable barriers for residents in need of care.¹⁸ A 2016 survey of more than 2000 physicians found that those with mental illnesses did not seek treatment due to limited time, fear of being reported to a medical licensing board, concern over obtaining licensure, and shame or embarrassment at the diagnosis.¹⁹ Besides urging residents to seek care, more effort should be invested in addressing the stigma and ensuring confidentiality. In 2021, the internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residency at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (Aurora, Colorado) developed a confidential opt-out, rather than opt-in, mental health program, and appointments were made for all 80 interns in advance. In doing so, they found increased participation and self-reported wellness at a relatively low cost and simple implementation.²⁰ For trainees without such access, online or mobile therapy platforms offering electronic mental health treatment or telepsychiatry also have been employed.^21,22 The onus ultimately is still on the individual to seek the care they need. Although only an anecdotal piece of evidence, I have found the prevalence of physicians taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as escitalopram, sertraline, or fluoxetine to be strikingly common and quite beneficial.

Final Thoughts

Residency remains rife with financial, emotional, and physical stressors; even as the dust settles on the COVID-19 pandemic, the light shed on the importance of trainee mental health must remain illuminated. For the aforementioned resources to have an impact, residents need to be empowered to openly discuss mental health issues and to seek help if necessary. Finally, in 2018, the Journal of Graduate Medical Education published a 10-year prospective cohort study that found that emotional distress during residency persists in professional practice even 10 years after residency and is associated with future burnout.²³ Trainees should consider prioritizing their mental health to not only improve their quality of life in the present but also as an investment for their future.

Most GI physicians will tell you that we didn’t get where we are without help along the way. Each of us can point to one – or in most cases, several – specific mentors who provided invaluable guidance when we were in medical school, fellowship, and starting our careers. This is true for gastroenterologists across the spectrum, whether they chose careers in private practice, academic medicine, or within a hospital system.

The leadership at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, where I practice, has always recognized the importance of mentorship and its role in developing fulfilling careers for its physicians and a healthy practice culture in which people feel valued and supported. But only recently have we begun to create a formalized program to ensure that everyone has access to mentors.

When I started my career, formalized programs for mentorship did not exist. While I reached out to various doctors in my office and the senior partners throughout the practice, not everyone is comfortable proactively reaching out to ask practice leadership for help and guidance. And as independent GI practices continue to get bigger, there may not be as many opportunities to interact with senior leadership or executives, which means new associates could be left to “cold call” potential mentors by phone or email.
 

New associates face many challenges

When I was an associate, the path to partnership looked much different than it does in our practice now, and it definitely varies from practice to practice. In our practice, physicians remain associates for 2-3 years before they have the option to become a partner. As they work diligently to provide the best care to patients, new associates face many challenges, like learning how to build a practice and interact with referring physicians, understanding the process to become a partner, and figuring out how to juggle other commitments, such as the balance between work and home life.

Then there are things like buying a home, getting life and disability insurance, and understanding the financial planning aspects of being a business owner. For those whose group model requires buying into the practice to become a partner, medical school doesn’t teach you how to analyze the return on an investment. Providing access to people who have this experience through a mentorship program can help associates be more prepared to become partners, and hopefully be happier and more successful while doing so.

Formalizing a mentorship program

The mentorship program at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates matches new physicians with a partner-level mentor with whom they are encouraged to meet monthly. We’ve even provided a budget so that mentees and mentors can meet for dinner or coffee and get to know each other better.

The program starts with a meeting of volunteer partners and associates, who then rank their preferred choices for potential mentors. This helps to ensure that the associates are able get to know the mentors a little bit and decide who might be the best fit for their needs. This is also important for new associates who don’t feel comfortable proactively searching for a mentor as they’re able to provide a list of partners they think would be the best match for them.

Each associate is then assigned a partner-level mentor who is responsible for guiding them and providing education around not only clinical care, but also business, marketing, health policy, and all the other critical components of running a successful private practice. Our program specifically pairs mentors and mentees who do not work in the same location. We wanted the mentors to be paired with associates they are not interacting with daily, to ensure our associates get exposed to different perspectives.

As a group, program participants get together every quarter – twice a year in person, and twice virtually. One of the in-person meetings brings together the mentors and mentees with C-suite executives to meet and network with the practice leadership. We organized the program this way because otherwise, most associates wouldn’t get many opportunities to interact with the CEO, chief medical officer, or chief operating officer in any capacity, let alone in a small gathering where they can engage on a personal level.

The second in-person meeting is a dinner with the mentors and mentees, along with their significant others. We understand that all our physicians have responsibilities outside of work, and bringing families together helps provide new associates with a network of support for questions that aren’t work-related. For associates who are not from Atlanta, this can be especially helpful in figuring out housing, schools, and other aspects of work/life balance.

The other two virtual meetings include the C-suite executives and our physician executive board. We develop specific agenda topics related to a career in private practice and provide a forum for the associates to ask practice leadership questions about challenges they may face on their path to becoming a partner.

At the end of each year, we survey the current program participants to see what was successful and what can be improved for the next cohort of incoming associates. So far, the feedback we’ve received from the mentors and mentees has been overwhelmingly positive.
 

Mentorship benefits the entire practice

As groups continue to grow, more practices may begin to formalize their mentorship programs, particularly those who see the merit they provide in helping recruit and retain valuable associates. To supplement our internal mentorship program, we’ve also started reaching out to local fellowship programs to provide resources to fellows who are considering private practice.

Even though about half of gastroenterology fellows choose independent GI, many aren’t educated about what it means to choose a career in private practice. Our outreach to provide information at the fellowship level is aimed at giving early career physicians an opportunity to know the benefits and challenges associated with private practice. Furthermore, we strive to educate fellows about the resources that are available to guide them through not only joining a group, but also having a successful career.

Leaders of independent GI groups need physicians who want the practice to succeed. Medical school trains physicians to take care of patients but falls short on training physicians to run a business. And building good, strong businesses makes sure that the next generation of leaders are prepared to take over.

Supporting the next generation of practice leaders helps current leadership make changes that will ensure practice sustainability. Often, associates are at the forefront of new technologies, both in terms of patient care, and in terms of practice management, communications, marketing, and advertising. As times change, having associates who are engaged and excited will help any practice be positioned positively for whatever the future holds.
 

What to look for in joining a practice

Ideally, people should start looking for mentors when they’re looking for a residency program. Joining a practice isn’t much different. If you’re an early career physician who is considering private practice, find an independent GI physician who can tell you about their experiences. And when you’re interviewing with practices, be sure to ask questions about how the group approaches mentorship. If a practice doesn’t have a formal mentorship program, it doesn’t mean it’s an environment where mentorship relationships won’t flourish. In many practices, informal mentorship programs are very successful.

Ask questions about how the practice provides or supports mentorship. Does the practice leadership make themselves available as mentors? Does the practice expect new physicians to find and nurture mentorship relations on their own? Ask about the path to becoming a partner and who is available to discuss challenges, concerns, or any questions that arise.

Independent GI practices are partnerships that seek to provide high-quality care at a lower cost to our community. Strengthening and sustaining that partnership requires us to take the time and continuously invest in the future of new physicians who will go on to serve our community as partner physicians retire. By formalizing a mentorship program, we’re hoping to make it easier for our mentors and mentees to create productive partnerships that will strengthen our group, and ultimately independent gastroenterology overall.

Dr. Sonenshine is a practicing gastroenterologist at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, and a partner in United Digestive. He previously served as the chair of communications as a member of the Executive Committee of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. Dr. Sonenshine has no conflicts to declare.

Most GI physicians will tell you that we didn’t get where we are without help along the way. Each of us can point to one – or in most cases, several – specific mentors who provided invaluable guidance when we were in medical school, fellowship, and starting our careers. This is true for gastroenterologists across the spectrum, whether they chose careers in private practice, academic medicine, or within a hospital system.

The leadership at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, where I practice, has always recognized the importance of mentorship and its role in developing fulfilling careers for its physicians and a healthy practice culture in which people feel valued and supported. But only recently have we begun to create a formalized program to ensure that everyone has access to mentors.

When I started my career, formalized programs for mentorship did not exist. While I reached out to various doctors in my office and the senior partners throughout the practice, not everyone is comfortable proactively reaching out to ask practice leadership for help and guidance. And as independent GI practices continue to get bigger, there may not be as many opportunities to interact with senior leadership or executives, which means new associates could be left to “cold call” potential mentors by phone or email.
 

New associates face many challenges

When I was an associate, the path to partnership looked much different than it does in our practice now, and it definitely varies from practice to practice. In our practice, physicians remain associates for 2-3 years before they have the option to become a partner. As they work diligently to provide the best care to patients, new associates face many challenges, like learning how to build a practice and interact with referring physicians, understanding the process to become a partner, and figuring out how to juggle other commitments, such as the balance between work and home life.

Then there are things like buying a home, getting life and disability insurance, and understanding the financial planning aspects of being a business owner. For those whose group model requires buying into the practice to become a partner, medical school doesn’t teach you how to analyze the return on an investment. Providing access to people who have this experience through a mentorship program can help associates be more prepared to become partners, and hopefully be happier and more successful while doing so.

Formalizing a mentorship program

The mentorship program at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates matches new physicians with a partner-level mentor with whom they are encouraged to meet monthly. We’ve even provided a budget so that mentees and mentors can meet for dinner or coffee and get to know each other better.

The program starts with a meeting of volunteer partners and associates, who then rank their preferred choices for potential mentors. This helps to ensure that the associates are able get to know the mentors a little bit and decide who might be the best fit for their needs. This is also important for new associates who don’t feel comfortable proactively searching for a mentor as they’re able to provide a list of partners they think would be the best match for them.

Each associate is then assigned a partner-level mentor who is responsible for guiding them and providing education around not only clinical care, but also business, marketing, health policy, and all the other critical components of running a successful private practice. Our program specifically pairs mentors and mentees who do not work in the same location. We wanted the mentors to be paired with associates they are not interacting with daily, to ensure our associates get exposed to different perspectives.

As a group, program participants get together every quarter – twice a year in person, and twice virtually. One of the in-person meetings brings together the mentors and mentees with C-suite executives to meet and network with the practice leadership. We organized the program this way because otherwise, most associates wouldn’t get many opportunities to interact with the CEO, chief medical officer, or chief operating officer in any capacity, let alone in a small gathering where they can engage on a personal level.

The second in-person meeting is a dinner with the mentors and mentees, along with their significant others. We understand that all our physicians have responsibilities outside of work, and bringing families together helps provide new associates with a network of support for questions that aren’t work-related. For associates who are not from Atlanta, this can be especially helpful in figuring out housing, schools, and other aspects of work/life balance.

The other two virtual meetings include the C-suite executives and our physician executive board. We develop specific agenda topics related to a career in private practice and provide a forum for the associates to ask practice leadership questions about challenges they may face on their path to becoming a partner.

At the end of each year, we survey the current program participants to see what was successful and what can be improved for the next cohort of incoming associates. So far, the feedback we’ve received from the mentors and mentees has been overwhelmingly positive.
 

Mentorship benefits the entire practice

As groups continue to grow, more practices may begin to formalize their mentorship programs, particularly those who see the merit they provide in helping recruit and retain valuable associates. To supplement our internal mentorship program, we’ve also started reaching out to local fellowship programs to provide resources to fellows who are considering private practice.

Even though about half of gastroenterology fellows choose independent GI, many aren’t educated about what it means to choose a career in private practice. Our outreach to provide information at the fellowship level is aimed at giving early career physicians an opportunity to know the benefits and challenges associated with private practice. Furthermore, we strive to educate fellows about the resources that are available to guide them through not only joining a group, but also having a successful career.

Leaders of independent GI groups need physicians who want the practice to succeed. Medical school trains physicians to take care of patients but falls short on training physicians to run a business. And building good, strong businesses makes sure that the next generation of leaders are prepared to take over.

Supporting the next generation of practice leaders helps current leadership make changes that will ensure practice sustainability. Often, associates are at the forefront of new technologies, both in terms of patient care, and in terms of practice management, communications, marketing, and advertising. As times change, having associates who are engaged and excited will help any practice be positioned positively for whatever the future holds.
 

What to look for in joining a practice

Ideally, people should start looking for mentors when they’re looking for a residency program. Joining a practice isn’t much different. If you’re an early career physician who is considering private practice, find an independent GI physician who can tell you about their experiences. And when you’re interviewing with practices, be sure to ask questions about how the group approaches mentorship. If a practice doesn’t have a formal mentorship program, it doesn’t mean it’s an environment where mentorship relationships won’t flourish. In many practices, informal mentorship programs are very successful.

Ask questions about how the practice provides or supports mentorship. Does the practice leadership make themselves available as mentors? Does the practice expect new physicians to find and nurture mentorship relations on their own? Ask about the path to becoming a partner and who is available to discuss challenges, concerns, or any questions that arise.

Independent GI practices are partnerships that seek to provide high-quality care at a lower cost to our community. Strengthening and sustaining that partnership requires us to take the time and continuously invest in the future of new physicians who will go on to serve our community as partner physicians retire. By formalizing a mentorship program, we’re hoping to make it easier for our mentors and mentees to create productive partnerships that will strengthen our group, and ultimately independent gastroenterology overall.

Dr. Sonenshine is a practicing gastroenterologist at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, and a partner in United Digestive. He previously served as the chair of communications as a member of the Executive Committee of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. Dr. Sonenshine has no conflicts to declare.

Most GI physicians will tell you that we didn’t get where we are without help along the way. Each of us can point to one – or in most cases, several – specific mentors who provided invaluable guidance when we were in medical school, fellowship, and starting our careers. This is true for gastroenterologists across the spectrum, whether they chose careers in private practice, academic medicine, or within a hospital system.

The leadership at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, where I practice, has always recognized the importance of mentorship and its role in developing fulfilling careers for its physicians and a healthy practice culture in which people feel valued and supported. But only recently have we begun to create a formalized program to ensure that everyone has access to mentors.

When I started my career, formalized programs for mentorship did not exist. While I reached out to various doctors in my office and the senior partners throughout the practice, not everyone is comfortable proactively reaching out to ask practice leadership for help and guidance. And as independent GI practices continue to get bigger, there may not be as many opportunities to interact with senior leadership or executives, which means new associates could be left to “cold call” potential mentors by phone or email.
 

New associates face many challenges

When I was an associate, the path to partnership looked much different than it does in our practice now, and it definitely varies from practice to practice. In our practice, physicians remain associates for 2-3 years before they have the option to become a partner. As they work diligently to provide the best care to patients, new associates face many challenges, like learning how to build a practice and interact with referring physicians, understanding the process to become a partner, and figuring out how to juggle other commitments, such as the balance between work and home life.

Then there are things like buying a home, getting life and disability insurance, and understanding the financial planning aspects of being a business owner. For those whose group model requires buying into the practice to become a partner, medical school doesn’t teach you how to analyze the return on an investment. Providing access to people who have this experience through a mentorship program can help associates be more prepared to become partners, and hopefully be happier and more successful while doing so.

Formalizing a mentorship program

The mentorship program at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates matches new physicians with a partner-level mentor with whom they are encouraged to meet monthly. We’ve even provided a budget so that mentees and mentors can meet for dinner or coffee and get to know each other better.

The program starts with a meeting of volunteer partners and associates, who then rank their preferred choices for potential mentors. This helps to ensure that the associates are able get to know the mentors a little bit and decide who might be the best fit for their needs. This is also important for new associates who don’t feel comfortable proactively searching for a mentor as they’re able to provide a list of partners they think would be the best match for them.

Each associate is then assigned a partner-level mentor who is responsible for guiding them and providing education around not only clinical care, but also business, marketing, health policy, and all the other critical components of running a successful private practice. Our program specifically pairs mentors and mentees who do not work in the same location. We wanted the mentors to be paired with associates they are not interacting with daily, to ensure our associates get exposed to different perspectives.

As a group, program participants get together every quarter – twice a year in person, and twice virtually. One of the in-person meetings brings together the mentors and mentees with C-suite executives to meet and network with the practice leadership. We organized the program this way because otherwise, most associates wouldn’t get many opportunities to interact with the CEO, chief medical officer, or chief operating officer in any capacity, let alone in a small gathering where they can engage on a personal level.

The second in-person meeting is a dinner with the mentors and mentees, along with their significant others. We understand that all our physicians have responsibilities outside of work, and bringing families together helps provide new associates with a network of support for questions that aren’t work-related. For associates who are not from Atlanta, this can be especially helpful in figuring out housing, schools, and other aspects of work/life balance.

The other two virtual meetings include the C-suite executives and our physician executive board. We develop specific agenda topics related to a career in private practice and provide a forum for the associates to ask practice leadership questions about challenges they may face on their path to becoming a partner.

At the end of each year, we survey the current program participants to see what was successful and what can be improved for the next cohort of incoming associates. So far, the feedback we’ve received from the mentors and mentees has been overwhelmingly positive.
 

Mentorship benefits the entire practice

As groups continue to grow, more practices may begin to formalize their mentorship programs, particularly those who see the merit they provide in helping recruit and retain valuable associates. To supplement our internal mentorship program, we’ve also started reaching out to local fellowship programs to provide resources to fellows who are considering private practice.

Even though about half of gastroenterology fellows choose independent GI, many aren’t educated about what it means to choose a career in private practice. Our outreach to provide information at the fellowship level is aimed at giving early career physicians an opportunity to know the benefits and challenges associated with private practice. Furthermore, we strive to educate fellows about the resources that are available to guide them through not only joining a group, but also having a successful career.

Leaders of independent GI groups need physicians who want the practice to succeed. Medical school trains physicians to take care of patients but falls short on training physicians to run a business. And building good, strong businesses makes sure that the next generation of leaders are prepared to take over.

Supporting the next generation of practice leaders helps current leadership make changes that will ensure practice sustainability. Often, associates are at the forefront of new technologies, both in terms of patient care, and in terms of practice management, communications, marketing, and advertising. As times change, having associates who are engaged and excited will help any practice be positioned positively for whatever the future holds.
 

What to look for in joining a practice

Ideally, people should start looking for mentors when they’re looking for a residency program. Joining a practice isn’t much different. If you’re an early career physician who is considering private practice, find an independent GI physician who can tell you about their experiences. And when you’re interviewing with practices, be sure to ask questions about how the group approaches mentorship. If a practice doesn’t have a formal mentorship program, it doesn’t mean it’s an environment where mentorship relationships won’t flourish. In many practices, informal mentorship programs are very successful.

Ask questions about how the practice provides or supports mentorship. Does the practice leadership make themselves available as mentors? Does the practice expect new physicians to find and nurture mentorship relations on their own? Ask about the path to becoming a partner and who is available to discuss challenges, concerns, or any questions that arise.

Independent GI practices are partnerships that seek to provide high-quality care at a lower cost to our community. Strengthening and sustaining that partnership requires us to take the time and continuously invest in the future of new physicians who will go on to serve our community as partner physicians retire. By formalizing a mentorship program, we’re hoping to make it easier for our mentors and mentees to create productive partnerships that will strengthen our group, and ultimately independent gastroenterology overall.

Dr. Sonenshine is a practicing gastroenterologist at Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, and a partner in United Digestive. He previously served as the chair of communications as a member of the Executive Committee of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. Dr. Sonenshine has no conflicts to declare.

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small number of U.S. medical oncologists make more than $100,000 a year in general payments from drug companies, a new study shows.

These high-payment physicians represent just 1% of all U.S. medical oncologists, yet they account for 37% of industry payments. These oncologists often hold important leadership positions, draft treatment guidelines, and sit on journal editorial boards.

The findings highlight a risk for “perceived and real conflict of interest,” corresponding author Christopher Booth, MD, of Queen’s University Cancer Research Center, Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. “Because of the leadership positions they hold, the potential impact of this small group of physicians on oncology practice and policy may be substantial.”

The study was published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

‘We have a problem’

It’s no secret that many oncologists have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. They receive payments for research initiatives, but they also receive more general, personal payments in the form of honoraria, consultant fees, gifts, and reimbursement for travel and meals.

Prior studies have shown that these payments are typically modest, but a small subset of medical oncologists receive more than $100,000 annually. Dr. Booth and colleagues wanted to know more about the characteristics of these “high-payment” oncologists.

Using the national Open Payments database, the researchers identified a total of 139 medical oncologists who practice in the United States and who received $100,000 or more in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018.

In U.S. dollars, the median payment was $154,613, and the total was $24.2 million.

The majority (95%) of high-payment oncologists were active in clinical work, 56% worked in an academic setting, 31% worked at National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, and 23% worked at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.

Many were based in California (17%), Texas (12%), Florida (10%), and New York (8%).

Most currently hold or have held hospital leadership positions (60%) or faculty appointments (72%) and 21% have held leadership positions in specialty associations in the past 5 years. Nearly one-quarter (24%) have served on journal editorial boards, and 10% have authored clinical practice guidelines in the past 5 years.

More specifically, three physicians authored NCCN guidelines, and two authored American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines during 2016-2021; one guideline was published in 2018 when payments were made.

“Oncology specialty associations, guideline panels, and journal editorial boards should reconsider if it is appropriate for physicians with such large payments to hold these high-profile positions,” Dr. Booth said.

Following publication of the study, some oncologists took to Twitter with reactions, including Manni Mohyuddin, MD (@ManniMD1), from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who wrote: “I recognize that some conflict of interest ‘may’ be unavoidable in order to run trials. But when greater than TWICE the average American household annual salary is taken in payments from industry by those in leadership/editorial roles, we have a problem.”

Weighing in on the results, ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis, MD, told this news organization that the “limitations of the study make it difficult to draw conclusions about the scope or potential impact of these payments on care.”

For example, he explained, some payments attributed to individuals may have been made directly to the physicians’ institutions or employers for sponsored research expenses.

Dr. Hudis also noted that the payments examined in the study were made in 2018, whereas the potentially relevant leadership positions could have been attained at a different time.

Furthermore, in 2020, an editorial appeared in Cancer, showing that errors in Open Payments are “fairly common,” Dr. Hudis said. It’s also unclear whether the reported financial relationships were appropriately disclosed and were managed at the time under relevant conflict of interest policies, he said.

“The question left unanswered by this study is whether or not these relationships influence patient care,” said Dr. Hudis. He noted that decisions about care should come from physicians and patients who are informed of the best available, unbiased, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

“The potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on this effort is an issue of concern, even if this study does not directly address it,” Dr. Hudis said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Booth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Hudis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I used to attend the Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium every year, but to my dismay, the American Society for Clinical Oncology stopped hosting the symposium a few years ago. Instead, ASCO now incorporates palliative care research fully into its annual meeting which was held in early June in Chicago. Being integrated into the annual meeting means greater exposure to a broader audience that may not otherwise see this work. In this column, I highlight some presentations that stood out to me.
 

Palliative care studies for patients with hematologic malignancies

There continues to be low uptake of outpatient palliative care services among patients with hematologic malignancies. Fortunately, there are efforts underway to study the impact of integrating early palliative care into the routine care of hematology patients. In a study presented by Mazie Tsang, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, researchers embedded a palliative care nurse practitioner in a hematology clinic and studied the impact this single NP had over 4 years of integration. They found that patients were less likely to be hospitalized or visit the emergency department after integrating the NP. They also found that advance directives were more likely to be completed following NP integration. The results were limited by small sample size and lack of a true control group, but generally trended toward significance when compared with historical controls.

Other studies highlighted the relatively high symptom burden among patients with hematologic malignancies, such as myeloma, leukemia, and lymphoma. In a study presented by Sarah E. Monick, MD, of the University of Chicago, researchers found that, among adolescents and young adults with hematologic malignancies seen in a clinic where a palliative care provider was embedded, symptom burden was high across the board regardless of where patients were in their disease trajectory or their demographic characteristics. Due to the presence of high symptom burden among adolescents and young adults, the authors suggest that patients undergo screening at every visit and that supportive care be incorporated throughout the patient’s journey.

Kyle Fitzgibbon of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto shared details of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial designed to evaluate the effect of a novel psychosocial/palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia hospitalized for induction chemotherapy. The intervention will consist of 8 weeks of psychological support as well as access to palliative care for physical symptoms. Participants will be randomized to receive either intervention or standard of care at the beginning of their hospitalization. Researchers plan to study the impact of the intervention on physical and psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction at multiple time points. It will be exciting to see the results of this study given that there are very few research clinical trials examining early palliative care with patients who have hematologic malignancies.

Trends in palliative care integration with oncology care

One key trend that I am elated to see is the integration of palliative care throughout the entire patient journey. A secondary analysis of oncology practice data from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program found that more than three-quarters of outpatient oncology practices surveyed in 2015 have integrated palliative care inpatient and outpatient services. 36% said they had an outpatient palliative care clinic. More availability of services typically translates to better access to care and improved outcomes for patients, so it is always nice to see these quality metrics continue to move in a positive direction. The analysis was presented by Tiffany M. Statler, PA, of Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, Winston Salem, N.C.

It turns out that patients are also advocating for integrated palliative care. A unique qualitative project brought together patient advocates from several countries to hold a moderated discussion about quality of life and treatment side effects. The advocates focused on the importance of maintaining independence with activities of daily living as a significant quality of life goal, particularly as treatments tend to cause cumulative mental and physical fatigue. They highlighted the importance of palliative care for helping achieve quality of life goals, especially in latter part of the disease trajectory. The project was presented by Paul Wheatley-Price, MD, of the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, University of Ottawa.

In 2010, a study by Temel and colleagues was published, finding that patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer who received palliative care early had significant improvements in quality of life and mood as compared with patients who received standard care. It was a landmark study and is frequently cited. The Temel group reports on the planning process for a new randomized controlled trial of palliative care with metastatic lung cancer patients who have targetable mutations. With next generation sequencing of tumor tissue, many patients with metastatic lung cancer are identified at diagnosis as having a targetable mutation. As such, they may receive a targeted therapy as first-line treatment instead of traditional chemotherapy. This has lengthened survival considerably, but the disease remains incurable and ultimately fatal, and the trajectory can resemble a roller-coaster ride.

In this new randomized controlled trial, patients in the experimental arm will receive four monthly visits with a palliative care clinician who is specially trained to help patients manage the uncertainties of prolonged illness. The researchers plan to evaluate patients’ distress levels and prognostic awareness, as well as evidence of advance care planning in the chart.

And, a study presented by Roberto Enrique Ochoa Planchart, MD, of Chen Medical Centers, Miami, found that when primary care providers used declines in functional status as a trigger for referring advanced cancer patients to palliative care, those patients were less likely to be admitted to the hospital near the end of life, translating to an 86% cost savings. This study reiterated the importance of partnering with a patient’s nononcologic providers, that is, primary care and palliative care clinicians to improve outcomes at the end of life.

Use of technology in palliative care

Numerous studies were reported on innovative uses of technology for various functions relevant to palliative care. They included everything from capturing patient-reported outcomes through patient-facing smartphone apps, to using artificial intelligence and/or machine learning to build prognostication tools and to generate earlier referrals to palliative care. There were presentations on the use of online tools to assist with and document goals of care conversations.

As a clinician who is always looking for new ways to capture patient symptom information and motivate patients to engage in advance care planning, I am excited about the prospect of using some of these tools in real time.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.