Opinion

Given the presence of erythema, lichenification, fissuring, and scale of the hands over the course of more than 3 months with the absence of nail findings is most consistent with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema.

Chronic hand eczema (CHE) is an inflammatory dermatitis of the hands or wrists that persists for longer than 3 months or recurs twice or more in a 12-month timespan.^1,2 Hand eczema can be a manifestation of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or irritant contact dermatitis. Its multifactorial pathogenesis includes epidermal injury and disturbed epidermal barrier function from exogenous factors such as irritants or contact allergens, as well as endogenous factors including atopic dermatitis.³ In pediatrics, it often presents after an acute phase of hand dermatitis with chronic pruritus, erythema, and dry skin with scale.⁴ Examination findings vary widely with erythema, vesicles, scale, fissures, crusting, hyperkeratosis, and/or lichenification.^3,5 Diagnosis is often achieved with careful history, asking about potential exposures that may induce lesions, and physical exam of the entire skin, including the feet. Based upon clinical history or persistent dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis patch testing should be considered.²

What’s the treatment plan?

Given that CHE is an inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to reduce inflammation and allow for skin barrier repair. Unfortunately, only one study has investigated therapeutics for pediatric CHE,⁶ with the remainder of the literature based on adult CHE. Current CHE guidelines recommend avoidance of allergens, irritants, or other triggers of the disease as well as liberal and regular use of emollients. Because of the relative thickness of hand skin, higher-potency topical corticosteroids are often used as first-line therapy, with lower-strength topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or crisaborole used as maintenance therapy. Other treatment options include phototherapy, and rarely, systemic therapies are utilized for atopic dermatitis.

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of CHE includes other scaling or hyperkeratotic skin conditions including psoriasis and tinea manuum. Other skin conditions that localize to extremities including scabies and hand-foot-and-mouth disease are discussed below.

Psoriasis can present on the hands with erythematous, well-demarcated, silver scaling plaques. However, additional plaques may be found on the elbows, knees, scalp, umbilicus, and sacrum. Nails can demonstrate pitting, oil drops, splinter hemorrhages, or onycholysis. First-line treatment includes a combination of topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and keratolytics.

Tinea mannum is a dermatophyte infection of the skin of the hands. Typically, only one hand is affected with concomitant bilateral tinea pedis. It results in a white scaly plaque with dorsal hand involvement demonstrating an annular appearance, elevated edge, and central clearing. KOH prep will demonstrate septate hyphae, and cultures will grow dermatophyte colonies. Treatment includes topical antifungals or systemic antifungals for recalcitrant disease.

Scabies presents with short linear hypopigmented lesions with a black dot on one end as well as erythematous pruritic papules. These appear on the interdigital web spaces, wrists, axilla, buttocks, and genital region. Skin scraping prep with mineral oil can show mites and eggs. All individuals in an affected household should be treated with either topical permethrin or oral ivermectin to avoid reinfection or parasitic spread. All contacted linens must be cleaned with hot water and dried on high heat.

Hand-foot-and-mouth disease, classically caused by coxsackievirus, is an acute viral illness that results in an eruption of erythematous macules, papules, and vesicles on the ventral hands, soles of the feet, and oral mucosa. Diagnosis is achieved clinically and treatment is symptomatic as the lesions are self-limited.

Our patient underwent patch testing but did not return positive to any allergens. She was started on potent topical corticosteroids, educated on trigger avoidance, and gradually achieved good disease control.

Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.
 

Michael Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is a 4th year medical student at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital.

References

1. Diepgen TL et al. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(2):353-8.

2. Diepgen TL et al. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2015;13(1):e1-22.

3. Agner T and Elsner P. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:4-12.

4. Mortz CG et al. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144(3):523-32.

5. Silvestre Salvador JF et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2020;111(1):26-40.

6. Luchsinger I et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(5):1037-42.

7. English J et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2009;34(7):761-9.

8. Elsner P and Agner T. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:13-21.

Given the presence of erythema, lichenification, fissuring, and scale of the hands over the course of more than 3 months with the absence of nail findings is most consistent with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema.

Chronic hand eczema (CHE) is an inflammatory dermatitis of the hands or wrists that persists for longer than 3 months or recurs twice or more in a 12-month timespan.^1,2 Hand eczema can be a manifestation of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or irritant contact dermatitis. Its multifactorial pathogenesis includes epidermal injury and disturbed epidermal barrier function from exogenous factors such as irritants or contact allergens, as well as endogenous factors including atopic dermatitis.³ In pediatrics, it often presents after an acute phase of hand dermatitis with chronic pruritus, erythema, and dry skin with scale.⁴ Examination findings vary widely with erythema, vesicles, scale, fissures, crusting, hyperkeratosis, and/or lichenification.^3,5 Diagnosis is often achieved with careful history, asking about potential exposures that may induce lesions, and physical exam of the entire skin, including the feet. Based upon clinical history or persistent dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis patch testing should be considered.²

What’s the treatment plan?

Given that CHE is an inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to reduce inflammation and allow for skin barrier repair. Unfortunately, only one study has investigated therapeutics for pediatric CHE,⁶ with the remainder of the literature based on adult CHE. Current CHE guidelines recommend avoidance of allergens, irritants, or other triggers of the disease as well as liberal and regular use of emollients. Because of the relative thickness of hand skin, higher-potency topical corticosteroids are often used as first-line therapy, with lower-strength topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or crisaborole used as maintenance therapy. Other treatment options include phototherapy, and rarely, systemic therapies are utilized for atopic dermatitis.

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of CHE includes other scaling or hyperkeratotic skin conditions including psoriasis and tinea manuum. Other skin conditions that localize to extremities including scabies and hand-foot-and-mouth disease are discussed below.

Psoriasis can present on the hands with erythematous, well-demarcated, silver scaling plaques. However, additional plaques may be found on the elbows, knees, scalp, umbilicus, and sacrum. Nails can demonstrate pitting, oil drops, splinter hemorrhages, or onycholysis. First-line treatment includes a combination of topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and keratolytics.

Tinea mannum is a dermatophyte infection of the skin of the hands. Typically, only one hand is affected with concomitant bilateral tinea pedis. It results in a white scaly plaque with dorsal hand involvement demonstrating an annular appearance, elevated edge, and central clearing. KOH prep will demonstrate septate hyphae, and cultures will grow dermatophyte colonies. Treatment includes topical antifungals or systemic antifungals for recalcitrant disease.

Scabies presents with short linear hypopigmented lesions with a black dot on one end as well as erythematous pruritic papules. These appear on the interdigital web spaces, wrists, axilla, buttocks, and genital region. Skin scraping prep with mineral oil can show mites and eggs. All individuals in an affected household should be treated with either topical permethrin or oral ivermectin to avoid reinfection or parasitic spread. All contacted linens must be cleaned with hot water and dried on high heat.

Hand-foot-and-mouth disease, classically caused by coxsackievirus, is an acute viral illness that results in an eruption of erythematous macules, papules, and vesicles on the ventral hands, soles of the feet, and oral mucosa. Diagnosis is achieved clinically and treatment is symptomatic as the lesions are self-limited.

Our patient underwent patch testing but did not return positive to any allergens. She was started on potent topical corticosteroids, educated on trigger avoidance, and gradually achieved good disease control.

Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.
 

Michael Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is a 4th year medical student at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital.

References

1. Diepgen TL et al. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(2):353-8.

2. Diepgen TL et al. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2015;13(1):e1-22.

3. Agner T and Elsner P. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:4-12.

4. Mortz CG et al. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144(3):523-32.

5. Silvestre Salvador JF et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2020;111(1):26-40.

6. Luchsinger I et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(5):1037-42.

7. English J et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2009;34(7):761-9.

8. Elsner P and Agner T. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:13-21.

Given the presence of erythema, lichenification, fissuring, and scale of the hands over the course of more than 3 months with the absence of nail findings is most consistent with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema.

Chronic hand eczema (CHE) is an inflammatory dermatitis of the hands or wrists that persists for longer than 3 months or recurs twice or more in a 12-month timespan.^1,2 Hand eczema can be a manifestation of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or irritant contact dermatitis. Its multifactorial pathogenesis includes epidermal injury and disturbed epidermal barrier function from exogenous factors such as irritants or contact allergens, as well as endogenous factors including atopic dermatitis.³ In pediatrics, it often presents after an acute phase of hand dermatitis with chronic pruritus, erythema, and dry skin with scale.⁴ Examination findings vary widely with erythema, vesicles, scale, fissures, crusting, hyperkeratosis, and/or lichenification.^3,5 Diagnosis is often achieved with careful history, asking about potential exposures that may induce lesions, and physical exam of the entire skin, including the feet. Based upon clinical history or persistent dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis patch testing should be considered.²

What’s the treatment plan?

Given that CHE is an inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to reduce inflammation and allow for skin barrier repair. Unfortunately, only one study has investigated therapeutics for pediatric CHE,⁶ with the remainder of the literature based on adult CHE. Current CHE guidelines recommend avoidance of allergens, irritants, or other triggers of the disease as well as liberal and regular use of emollients. Because of the relative thickness of hand skin, higher-potency topical corticosteroids are often used as first-line therapy, with lower-strength topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or crisaborole used as maintenance therapy. Other treatment options include phototherapy, and rarely, systemic therapies are utilized for atopic dermatitis.

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of CHE includes other scaling or hyperkeratotic skin conditions including psoriasis and tinea manuum. Other skin conditions that localize to extremities including scabies and hand-foot-and-mouth disease are discussed below.

Psoriasis can present on the hands with erythematous, well-demarcated, silver scaling plaques. However, additional plaques may be found on the elbows, knees, scalp, umbilicus, and sacrum. Nails can demonstrate pitting, oil drops, splinter hemorrhages, or onycholysis. First-line treatment includes a combination of topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and keratolytics.

Tinea mannum is a dermatophyte infection of the skin of the hands. Typically, only one hand is affected with concomitant bilateral tinea pedis. It results in a white scaly plaque with dorsal hand involvement demonstrating an annular appearance, elevated edge, and central clearing. KOH prep will demonstrate septate hyphae, and cultures will grow dermatophyte colonies. Treatment includes topical antifungals or systemic antifungals for recalcitrant disease.

Scabies presents with short linear hypopigmented lesions with a black dot on one end as well as erythematous pruritic papules. These appear on the interdigital web spaces, wrists, axilla, buttocks, and genital region. Skin scraping prep with mineral oil can show mites and eggs. All individuals in an affected household should be treated with either topical permethrin or oral ivermectin to avoid reinfection or parasitic spread. All contacted linens must be cleaned with hot water and dried on high heat.

Hand-foot-and-mouth disease, classically caused by coxsackievirus, is an acute viral illness that results in an eruption of erythematous macules, papules, and vesicles on the ventral hands, soles of the feet, and oral mucosa. Diagnosis is achieved clinically and treatment is symptomatic as the lesions are self-limited.

Our patient underwent patch testing but did not return positive to any allergens. She was started on potent topical corticosteroids, educated on trigger avoidance, and gradually achieved good disease control.

Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.
 

Michael Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is a 4th year medical student at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital.

References

1. Diepgen TL et al. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(2):353-8.

2. Diepgen TL et al. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2015;13(1):e1-22.

3. Agner T and Elsner P. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:4-12.

4. Mortz CG et al. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144(3):523-32.

5. Silvestre Salvador JF et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2020;111(1):26-40.

6. Luchsinger I et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(5):1037-42.

7. English J et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2009;34(7):761-9.

8. Elsner P and Agner T. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:13-21.

From my residency training graduation date, June 1978, many changes to the family medicine specialty have occurred. These are not due to certification requirements but to the dilution of physician control in health care.

The need to provide more affordable health care by insurance companies while maintaining quality prompted more changes. Additionally, employer-based decisions to change insurance plans, since they were the payer for employer-based health insurance, sometimes yearly, prompted mandatory changes in health insurance.

To achieve hospital-based goals and cost containment the advent and use of hospitalists and the expanded use of physician extenders emerged. While I have some support for these changes, they have redefined elements of the Folsom report^, which concluded that every American should have a personal physician to care for them and help integrate them into the health care system.

Changes in the health care delivery system and insurance companies’ need to contain costs, while expanding preventative medicine, coupled with a decreasing number of trained family medicine physicians, represents the background of some of the changes in family medicine over the past 50 years. Managed health care, I believe, was certainly part of the answer to implementing the following recommendation of the Folsom report: every American should have a physician-manager for their health care.

Despite the continual output of new family physicians, a shortage of physicians trained in this specialty remained. Advances in health care, which lengthened life expectancy and the fact that most health insurance companies required its members to name a primary care physician expanded the population requiring primary health care services. This only exacerbated the shortage of family physicians and lowered earning power for doctors practicing family medicine, and it created greater professional demands on family physicians, compared with those in other, more limited-scope specialties. The primary care physician shortage needed to be addressed, prompting a redefinition in the traditional nurse practitioner role.
 

The expansion of nurse practitioners and physician assistants’ roles

The nursing profession began training advanced-placement nurses and instituted a Doctor of Nurse Practitioner degree. At the same time physician assistants, a program that began while I was a resident, had a further role expansion, including training confined to a single specialty area of medicine. These roles were expanded by state legislators who added them to the list of primary care providers, in some locations, permitting independent practice and placing the physician assistant under the state medical boards and the nurse practitioner and Doctor of Nurse Practitioners under the nursing boards, for expanded regulations and the implementation of the new provider requirements for licensure.
 

 

The effects of insurance companies on primary care physicians and patients

When I started practicing medicine the physician was truly the manager of a person’s health care. With the advent of managed health care, that has changed. Physicians are no longer the managers; an uninvited marriage between physician, physician extender, insurance company, employer, and patient jointly controls health care.

Patients are opting for less care at the cheapest price based on incentives driven by cost and abetted by insurance companies and employers. The cost of medications has increased and provider services, coupled with medication and specialty costs have nearly priced many beyond their economic limits to pay. As a result, the patient is not always as committed as their provider to meeting the metrics of their insurance company, especially if that is increasing their out-of-pocket cost.

In addition to usual services, the primary care physician is required to demonstrate the adequacy of services provided through meeting certain practice quality metrics for nearly all insurance carriers, including Medicare and Medicaid. Because meeting these metrics carries a significant economic incentive many practices are retaining fewer noncompliant patients and have opted to bolster their bottom line with the more complaint. This adversely impacts the delivery of primary care to a significant portion of the population.

Patients that reside in poorer neighborhoods, rural areas, as well the marginalized compose a significant portion of many primary care provider’s practices and make up a significant percentage of noncompliant patients. Recognizing that the primary care physician’s overhead is high, coupled with the amount of financial and personal resources put into place to meet metrics, it costs much more to care for the marginalized, poor, and rural populations than easier-to-care for patient groups. This creates a disparity in health care.

A study that revisited the Folsom report concluded that “the 21st century primary care physician must be a true public health professional, forming partnerships and assisting data sharing with community organizations to facilitate healthy changes.” These observations have redefined primary care. This type of medicine is no longer tied to a physician; it is tied to a fairly expensive team of providers, which includes a nurse manager, physician, physician extender, social worker, and in some cases, a pharmacist. The days of mostly solo practitioners are waning and the days of the traditional family medicine residency training requires continuous nuancing, to accommodate the expanded list of practice-related responsibilities assigned to the family doctor.
 

Low reimbursements rates and high office overhead

The last change I have observed in the practice of family medicine over the past 50 years is a decline in the ratio of reimbursement rate for services to practice expenses. Many practitioners opt out of Medicaid or have certainly curtailed the number of Medicaid recipients on their panel because of its unacceptably low reimbursement rates combined with their high office overhead. The requirements for organizing community resources, including nursing agencies and church and community groups, carry no reimbursement for time invested. The primary care provider is responsible and evaluated on patient outcomes despite the noncompliant behavior of the patient.

 

What is the future of the primary care physician or provider?

The factors that determine this answer lie in what will be required of the provider and the role of the insurance company in assisting the provider of services. Insurance companies have a responsibility because they receive money to pay for metrics while remaining profitable. They must be brought into the success formula and assist the provider in order for the latter to survive. Currently the primary care provider, in an abundance of caution, is required to seek more specialty services, which drives up the cost of health care. Instead, the insurance company should allow the primary care provider to direct the health care and stop being the manager, approving or disapproving services. In summary, much has happened in family medicine over the past 50 years. The ongoing personal doctor-patient relationship has turned into a doctor-patient-insurance company relationship. The introduction of the third party has created an economic incentive for the physician to meet practice metrics, which sometimes, from the patient’s economic perspective, creates economic hardship.

Some patients enlist a primary care physician in name only but continue to drive their health care by the older model, thanks to the advent of the urgent care centers. These patients see participating in the crisis-care model as resulting in lower out-of-pocket costs. Insurance companies should enlist patient support by expanding their patient education to include the benefits of health, the benefits of meeting quality metrics by their physician, and the necessity of maintaining a compliant doctor-patient relationship. Just as they offer incentives to the primary care practitioner for meeting quality metrics incentives should be offered to those patients that meet quality metrics as well.

In the 21st century, a new model of health care emerged, which includes a primary care practitioner, nurse manager-educator, social worker, and a pharmacist. To deliver quality health care one person can’t be responsible for this burden and do it effectively. Many family practice residencies already use this model and most likely advise their graduates to seek employment where this model exists. Additionally, I am sure that family practice residencies are continually nuanced to achieve the teaching mantra required for successful postgraduate employment and good patient outcomes.
 

What is the future of family medicine?

The family medicine specialty is represented by a practice that looks at outcome metrics primarily without an incentive for helping the marginalized, poor, homeless, and displaced members of our society.

Urban family medicine, much like what I have practiced in this my 43rd year, is different. My practice community includes every segment of society and my approach lies in the improvement of outcomes from all that I serve. It is my impression that the future of family medicine education must include all members of our society and train residents to effectively care for all, irrespective of economic status, and evolve ways to improve the health outcomes for all.

The federal government, through reimbursement and incentive programs, needs to include such efforts in the model of care for these individuals to reduce the expense burden on the practitioner achieving better practice success and less burnout.

Dr. Betton practices family medicine in Little Rock, Ark. He also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

From my residency training graduation date, June 1978, many changes to the family medicine specialty have occurred. These are not due to certification requirements but to the dilution of physician control in health care.

The need to provide more affordable health care by insurance companies while maintaining quality prompted more changes. Additionally, employer-based decisions to change insurance plans, since they were the payer for employer-based health insurance, sometimes yearly, prompted mandatory changes in health insurance.

To achieve hospital-based goals and cost containment the advent and use of hospitalists and the expanded use of physician extenders emerged. While I have some support for these changes, they have redefined elements of the Folsom report^, which concluded that every American should have a personal physician to care for them and help integrate them into the health care system.

Changes in the health care delivery system and insurance companies’ need to contain costs, while expanding preventative medicine, coupled with a decreasing number of trained family medicine physicians, represents the background of some of the changes in family medicine over the past 50 years. Managed health care, I believe, was certainly part of the answer to implementing the following recommendation of the Folsom report: every American should have a physician-manager for their health care.

Despite the continual output of new family physicians, a shortage of physicians trained in this specialty remained. Advances in health care, which lengthened life expectancy and the fact that most health insurance companies required its members to name a primary care physician expanded the population requiring primary health care services. This only exacerbated the shortage of family physicians and lowered earning power for doctors practicing family medicine, and it created greater professional demands on family physicians, compared with those in other, more limited-scope specialties. The primary care physician shortage needed to be addressed, prompting a redefinition in the traditional nurse practitioner role.
 

The expansion of nurse practitioners and physician assistants’ roles

The nursing profession began training advanced-placement nurses and instituted a Doctor of Nurse Practitioner degree. At the same time physician assistants, a program that began while I was a resident, had a further role expansion, including training confined to a single specialty area of medicine. These roles were expanded by state legislators who added them to the list of primary care providers, in some locations, permitting independent practice and placing the physician assistant under the state medical boards and the nurse practitioner and Doctor of Nurse Practitioners under the nursing boards, for expanded regulations and the implementation of the new provider requirements for licensure.
 

 

The effects of insurance companies on primary care physicians and patients

When I started practicing medicine the physician was truly the manager of a person’s health care. With the advent of managed health care, that has changed. Physicians are no longer the managers; an uninvited marriage between physician, physician extender, insurance company, employer, and patient jointly controls health care.

Patients are opting for less care at the cheapest price based on incentives driven by cost and abetted by insurance companies and employers. The cost of medications has increased and provider services, coupled with medication and specialty costs have nearly priced many beyond their economic limits to pay. As a result, the patient is not always as committed as their provider to meeting the metrics of their insurance company, especially if that is increasing their out-of-pocket cost.

In addition to usual services, the primary care physician is required to demonstrate the adequacy of services provided through meeting certain practice quality metrics for nearly all insurance carriers, including Medicare and Medicaid. Because meeting these metrics carries a significant economic incentive many practices are retaining fewer noncompliant patients and have opted to bolster their bottom line with the more complaint. This adversely impacts the delivery of primary care to a significant portion of the population.

Patients that reside in poorer neighborhoods, rural areas, as well the marginalized compose a significant portion of many primary care provider’s practices and make up a significant percentage of noncompliant patients. Recognizing that the primary care physician’s overhead is high, coupled with the amount of financial and personal resources put into place to meet metrics, it costs much more to care for the marginalized, poor, and rural populations than easier-to-care for patient groups. This creates a disparity in health care.

A study that revisited the Folsom report concluded that “the 21st century primary care physician must be a true public health professional, forming partnerships and assisting data sharing with community organizations to facilitate healthy changes.” These observations have redefined primary care. This type of medicine is no longer tied to a physician; it is tied to a fairly expensive team of providers, which includes a nurse manager, physician, physician extender, social worker, and in some cases, a pharmacist. The days of mostly solo practitioners are waning and the days of the traditional family medicine residency training requires continuous nuancing, to accommodate the expanded list of practice-related responsibilities assigned to the family doctor.
 

Low reimbursements rates and high office overhead

The last change I have observed in the practice of family medicine over the past 50 years is a decline in the ratio of reimbursement rate for services to practice expenses. Many practitioners opt out of Medicaid or have certainly curtailed the number of Medicaid recipients on their panel because of its unacceptably low reimbursement rates combined with their high office overhead. The requirements for organizing community resources, including nursing agencies and church and community groups, carry no reimbursement for time invested. The primary care provider is responsible and evaluated on patient outcomes despite the noncompliant behavior of the patient.

 

What is the future of the primary care physician or provider?

The factors that determine this answer lie in what will be required of the provider and the role of the insurance company in assisting the provider of services. Insurance companies have a responsibility because they receive money to pay for metrics while remaining profitable. They must be brought into the success formula and assist the provider in order for the latter to survive. Currently the primary care provider, in an abundance of caution, is required to seek more specialty services, which drives up the cost of health care. Instead, the insurance company should allow the primary care provider to direct the health care and stop being the manager, approving or disapproving services. In summary, much has happened in family medicine over the past 50 years. The ongoing personal doctor-patient relationship has turned into a doctor-patient-insurance company relationship. The introduction of the third party has created an economic incentive for the physician to meet practice metrics, which sometimes, from the patient’s economic perspective, creates economic hardship.

Some patients enlist a primary care physician in name only but continue to drive their health care by the older model, thanks to the advent of the urgent care centers. These patients see participating in the crisis-care model as resulting in lower out-of-pocket costs. Insurance companies should enlist patient support by expanding their patient education to include the benefits of health, the benefits of meeting quality metrics by their physician, and the necessity of maintaining a compliant doctor-patient relationship. Just as they offer incentives to the primary care practitioner for meeting quality metrics incentives should be offered to those patients that meet quality metrics as well.

In the 21st century, a new model of health care emerged, which includes a primary care practitioner, nurse manager-educator, social worker, and a pharmacist. To deliver quality health care one person can’t be responsible for this burden and do it effectively. Many family practice residencies already use this model and most likely advise their graduates to seek employment where this model exists. Additionally, I am sure that family practice residencies are continually nuanced to achieve the teaching mantra required for successful postgraduate employment and good patient outcomes.
 

What is the future of family medicine?

The family medicine specialty is represented by a practice that looks at outcome metrics primarily without an incentive for helping the marginalized, poor, homeless, and displaced members of our society.

Urban family medicine, much like what I have practiced in this my 43rd year, is different. My practice community includes every segment of society and my approach lies in the improvement of outcomes from all that I serve. It is my impression that the future of family medicine education must include all members of our society and train residents to effectively care for all, irrespective of economic status, and evolve ways to improve the health outcomes for all.

The federal government, through reimbursement and incentive programs, needs to include such efforts in the model of care for these individuals to reduce the expense burden on the practitioner achieving better practice success and less burnout.

Dr. Betton practices family medicine in Little Rock, Ark. He also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

From my residency training graduation date, June 1978, many changes to the family medicine specialty have occurred. These are not due to certification requirements but to the dilution of physician control in health care.

The need to provide more affordable health care by insurance companies while maintaining quality prompted more changes. Additionally, employer-based decisions to change insurance plans, since they were the payer for employer-based health insurance, sometimes yearly, prompted mandatory changes in health insurance.

To achieve hospital-based goals and cost containment the advent and use of hospitalists and the expanded use of physician extenders emerged. While I have some support for these changes, they have redefined elements of the Folsom report^, which concluded that every American should have a personal physician to care for them and help integrate them into the health care system.

Changes in the health care delivery system and insurance companies’ need to contain costs, while expanding preventative medicine, coupled with a decreasing number of trained family medicine physicians, represents the background of some of the changes in family medicine over the past 50 years. Managed health care, I believe, was certainly part of the answer to implementing the following recommendation of the Folsom report: every American should have a physician-manager for their health care.

Despite the continual output of new family physicians, a shortage of physicians trained in this specialty remained. Advances in health care, which lengthened life expectancy and the fact that most health insurance companies required its members to name a primary care physician expanded the population requiring primary health care services. This only exacerbated the shortage of family physicians and lowered earning power for doctors practicing family medicine, and it created greater professional demands on family physicians, compared with those in other, more limited-scope specialties. The primary care physician shortage needed to be addressed, prompting a redefinition in the traditional nurse practitioner role.
 

The expansion of nurse practitioners and physician assistants’ roles

The nursing profession began training advanced-placement nurses and instituted a Doctor of Nurse Practitioner degree. At the same time physician assistants, a program that began while I was a resident, had a further role expansion, including training confined to a single specialty area of medicine. These roles were expanded by state legislators who added them to the list of primary care providers, in some locations, permitting independent practice and placing the physician assistant under the state medical boards and the nurse practitioner and Doctor of Nurse Practitioners under the nursing boards, for expanded regulations and the implementation of the new provider requirements for licensure.
 

 

The effects of insurance companies on primary care physicians and patients

When I started practicing medicine the physician was truly the manager of a person’s health care. With the advent of managed health care, that has changed. Physicians are no longer the managers; an uninvited marriage between physician, physician extender, insurance company, employer, and patient jointly controls health care.

Patients are opting for less care at the cheapest price based on incentives driven by cost and abetted by insurance companies and employers. The cost of medications has increased and provider services, coupled with medication and specialty costs have nearly priced many beyond their economic limits to pay. As a result, the patient is not always as committed as their provider to meeting the metrics of their insurance company, especially if that is increasing their out-of-pocket cost.

In addition to usual services, the primary care physician is required to demonstrate the adequacy of services provided through meeting certain practice quality metrics for nearly all insurance carriers, including Medicare and Medicaid. Because meeting these metrics carries a significant economic incentive many practices are retaining fewer noncompliant patients and have opted to bolster their bottom line with the more complaint. This adversely impacts the delivery of primary care to a significant portion of the population.

Patients that reside in poorer neighborhoods, rural areas, as well the marginalized compose a significant portion of many primary care provider’s practices and make up a significant percentage of noncompliant patients. Recognizing that the primary care physician’s overhead is high, coupled with the amount of financial and personal resources put into place to meet metrics, it costs much more to care for the marginalized, poor, and rural populations than easier-to-care for patient groups. This creates a disparity in health care.

A study that revisited the Folsom report concluded that “the 21st century primary care physician must be a true public health professional, forming partnerships and assisting data sharing with community organizations to facilitate healthy changes.” These observations have redefined primary care. This type of medicine is no longer tied to a physician; it is tied to a fairly expensive team of providers, which includes a nurse manager, physician, physician extender, social worker, and in some cases, a pharmacist. The days of mostly solo practitioners are waning and the days of the traditional family medicine residency training requires continuous nuancing, to accommodate the expanded list of practice-related responsibilities assigned to the family doctor.
 

Low reimbursements rates and high office overhead

The last change I have observed in the practice of family medicine over the past 50 years is a decline in the ratio of reimbursement rate for services to practice expenses. Many practitioners opt out of Medicaid or have certainly curtailed the number of Medicaid recipients on their panel because of its unacceptably low reimbursement rates combined with their high office overhead. The requirements for organizing community resources, including nursing agencies and church and community groups, carry no reimbursement for time invested. The primary care provider is responsible and evaluated on patient outcomes despite the noncompliant behavior of the patient.

 

What is the future of the primary care physician or provider?

The factors that determine this answer lie in what will be required of the provider and the role of the insurance company in assisting the provider of services. Insurance companies have a responsibility because they receive money to pay for metrics while remaining profitable. They must be brought into the success formula and assist the provider in order for the latter to survive. Currently the primary care provider, in an abundance of caution, is required to seek more specialty services, which drives up the cost of health care. Instead, the insurance company should allow the primary care provider to direct the health care and stop being the manager, approving or disapproving services. In summary, much has happened in family medicine over the past 50 years. The ongoing personal doctor-patient relationship has turned into a doctor-patient-insurance company relationship. The introduction of the third party has created an economic incentive for the physician to meet practice metrics, which sometimes, from the patient’s economic perspective, creates economic hardship.

Some patients enlist a primary care physician in name only but continue to drive their health care by the older model, thanks to the advent of the urgent care centers. These patients see participating in the crisis-care model as resulting in lower out-of-pocket costs. Insurance companies should enlist patient support by expanding their patient education to include the benefits of health, the benefits of meeting quality metrics by their physician, and the necessity of maintaining a compliant doctor-patient relationship. Just as they offer incentives to the primary care practitioner for meeting quality metrics incentives should be offered to those patients that meet quality metrics as well.

In the 21st century, a new model of health care emerged, which includes a primary care practitioner, nurse manager-educator, social worker, and a pharmacist. To deliver quality health care one person can’t be responsible for this burden and do it effectively. Many family practice residencies already use this model and most likely advise their graduates to seek employment where this model exists. Additionally, I am sure that family practice residencies are continually nuanced to achieve the teaching mantra required for successful postgraduate employment and good patient outcomes.
 

What is the future of family medicine?

The family medicine specialty is represented by a practice that looks at outcome metrics primarily without an incentive for helping the marginalized, poor, homeless, and displaced members of our society.

Urban family medicine, much like what I have practiced in this my 43rd year, is different. My practice community includes every segment of society and my approach lies in the improvement of outcomes from all that I serve. It is my impression that the future of family medicine education must include all members of our society and train residents to effectively care for all, irrespective of economic status, and evolve ways to improve the health outcomes for all.

The federal government, through reimbursement and incentive programs, needs to include such efforts in the model of care for these individuals to reduce the expense burden on the practitioner achieving better practice success and less burnout.

Dr. Betton practices family medicine in Little Rock, Ark. He also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at [email protected].

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at [email protected].

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at [email protected].

The light at the end of the pandemic tunnel seems even brighter than it did just a month ago and in its glow it’s tempting to look back on the adjustments we have made in our lives and consider how many of those adjustments will solidify into new standards. Certainly, near the top of the changes wrought by SARS-CoV-2 is an explosive use of the Internet as a vehicle for group interaction and communication. Did you even know what Zoom was a year ago?

From remote education to international business meetings our screen time has increased dramatically. In homes across the country families have relaxed any restrictions they might have had on video exposure as they struggled to amuse and entertain children who have been shut off from their playmates. As reported in the Washington Post, the monitoring company Bark found that children sent and received 144% more Internet messages in 2020 than they had the year before..

Even families that I know who have been incredibly creative in finding physical activities, both indoor and outdoor, for their children have scaled back their restrictions on screen time. While the term “survival mode” is a bit too strong to describe this phenomenon, it was simply a matter of finding solutions given a limited supply of options.

The increase in screen time has prompted many parents to worry about its effect on their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has already expressed concern about the cumulative effects of screen exposure on visual acuity. And it seems reasonable to expect that the obesity epidemic will accelerate as more children become more sedentary watching video screens. Whether the dire predictions of educators about lost learning will come true remains to be seen.

We can hope that this relaxation of screen time limits will be temporary. But that hope has a slim chance of becoming a reality as we have realized how powerful the Internet can be as an imperfect but effective educational tool. We have seen that apps such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and FaceTime can allow families to connect on holidays when to face-to-face meetings are impractical. How should parents, and those of us who advise them, begin to restructure sensible and enforceable guidelines for screen time given the sea change we have just experienced?

There will certainly be significant resistance on the part of children to unlearn screen habits developed during the darkest hours of the pandemic: Texting a friend whom you will now be able to see in school, playing a video game instead of biking around the neighborhood with on a sunny afternoon, or, binging on sitcoms in the evening with your parents when they knew you didn’t have to get up early to catch the school bus.

It could be a herculean task to nudge the screen time pendulum back toward the prepandemic “norm.” In the past we haven’t done a very good job of promoting a healthy screen time diet for children. When the only screen in town was television the American Academy of Pediatrics’ focus was more on content than quantity. Quality is often difficult to assess and parents, like most everyone, seem more comfortable with guidelines that include a time metric – even if they don’t seem to be very good at enforcing it.

Maybe screen time is too big a boulder to roll up the hill. The good news is that during the pandemic, activity – particularly outdoor activity – has increased dramatically. Bicycles went off the shelves like toilet paper. National and state parks have been overflowing with families. While we must not ignore the downside of excess screen time, we should put more effort into promoting the healthy alternative of outdoor recreation. Let’s not allow a positive trend slip into becoming a short-lived fad.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The light at the end of the pandemic tunnel seems even brighter than it did just a month ago and in its glow it’s tempting to look back on the adjustments we have made in our lives and consider how many of those adjustments will solidify into new standards. Certainly, near the top of the changes wrought by SARS-CoV-2 is an explosive use of the Internet as a vehicle for group interaction and communication. Did you even know what Zoom was a year ago?

From remote education to international business meetings our screen time has increased dramatically. In homes across the country families have relaxed any restrictions they might have had on video exposure as they struggled to amuse and entertain children who have been shut off from their playmates. As reported in the Washington Post, the monitoring company Bark found that children sent and received 144% more Internet messages in 2020 than they had the year before..

Even families that I know who have been incredibly creative in finding physical activities, both indoor and outdoor, for their children have scaled back their restrictions on screen time. While the term “survival mode” is a bit too strong to describe this phenomenon, it was simply a matter of finding solutions given a limited supply of options.

The increase in screen time has prompted many parents to worry about its effect on their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has already expressed concern about the cumulative effects of screen exposure on visual acuity. And it seems reasonable to expect that the obesity epidemic will accelerate as more children become more sedentary watching video screens. Whether the dire predictions of educators about lost learning will come true remains to be seen.

We can hope that this relaxation of screen time limits will be temporary. But that hope has a slim chance of becoming a reality as we have realized how powerful the Internet can be as an imperfect but effective educational tool. We have seen that apps such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and FaceTime can allow families to connect on holidays when to face-to-face meetings are impractical. How should parents, and those of us who advise them, begin to restructure sensible and enforceable guidelines for screen time given the sea change we have just experienced?

There will certainly be significant resistance on the part of children to unlearn screen habits developed during the darkest hours of the pandemic: Texting a friend whom you will now be able to see in school, playing a video game instead of biking around the neighborhood with on a sunny afternoon, or, binging on sitcoms in the evening with your parents when they knew you didn’t have to get up early to catch the school bus.

It could be a herculean task to nudge the screen time pendulum back toward the prepandemic “norm.” In the past we haven’t done a very good job of promoting a healthy screen time diet for children. When the only screen in town was television the American Academy of Pediatrics’ focus was more on content than quantity. Quality is often difficult to assess and parents, like most everyone, seem more comfortable with guidelines that include a time metric – even if they don’t seem to be very good at enforcing it.

Maybe screen time is too big a boulder to roll up the hill. The good news is that during the pandemic, activity – particularly outdoor activity – has increased dramatically. Bicycles went off the shelves like toilet paper. National and state parks have been overflowing with families. While we must not ignore the downside of excess screen time, we should put more effort into promoting the healthy alternative of outdoor recreation. Let’s not allow a positive trend slip into becoming a short-lived fad.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The light at the end of the pandemic tunnel seems even brighter than it did just a month ago and in its glow it’s tempting to look back on the adjustments we have made in our lives and consider how many of those adjustments will solidify into new standards. Certainly, near the top of the changes wrought by SARS-CoV-2 is an explosive use of the Internet as a vehicle for group interaction and communication. Did you even know what Zoom was a year ago?

From remote education to international business meetings our screen time has increased dramatically. In homes across the country families have relaxed any restrictions they might have had on video exposure as they struggled to amuse and entertain children who have been shut off from their playmates. As reported in the Washington Post, the monitoring company Bark found that children sent and received 144% more Internet messages in 2020 than they had the year before..

Even families that I know who have been incredibly creative in finding physical activities, both indoor and outdoor, for their children have scaled back their restrictions on screen time. While the term “survival mode” is a bit too strong to describe this phenomenon, it was simply a matter of finding solutions given a limited supply of options.

The increase in screen time has prompted many parents to worry about its effect on their children. The American Academy of Pediatrics has already expressed concern about the cumulative effects of screen exposure on visual acuity. And it seems reasonable to expect that the obesity epidemic will accelerate as more children become more sedentary watching video screens. Whether the dire predictions of educators about lost learning will come true remains to be seen.

We can hope that this relaxation of screen time limits will be temporary. But that hope has a slim chance of becoming a reality as we have realized how powerful the Internet can be as an imperfect but effective educational tool. We have seen that apps such as Zoom, GoToMeeting, and FaceTime can allow families to connect on holidays when to face-to-face meetings are impractical. How should parents, and those of us who advise them, begin to restructure sensible and enforceable guidelines for screen time given the sea change we have just experienced?

There will certainly be significant resistance on the part of children to unlearn screen habits developed during the darkest hours of the pandemic: Texting a friend whom you will now be able to see in school, playing a video game instead of biking around the neighborhood with on a sunny afternoon, or, binging on sitcoms in the evening with your parents when they knew you didn’t have to get up early to catch the school bus.

It could be a herculean task to nudge the screen time pendulum back toward the prepandemic “norm.” In the past we haven’t done a very good job of promoting a healthy screen time diet for children. When the only screen in town was television the American Academy of Pediatrics’ focus was more on content than quantity. Quality is often difficult to assess and parents, like most everyone, seem more comfortable with guidelines that include a time metric – even if they don’t seem to be very good at enforcing it.

Maybe screen time is too big a boulder to roll up the hill. The good news is that during the pandemic, activity – particularly outdoor activity – has increased dramatically. Bicycles went off the shelves like toilet paper. National and state parks have been overflowing with families. While we must not ignore the downside of excess screen time, we should put more effort into promoting the healthy alternative of outdoor recreation. Let’s not allow a positive trend slip into becoming a short-lived fad.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

For the near future, it is hard to imagine anything having a larger impact on children’s health than the need to reopen schools.

There are many social determinants of health and many of those have been, appropriately, more strongly tied to schools than to health care. Academics are important, and those are best delivered by trained educators. Nutrition is important; hot lunch programs play an important role in ensuring children don’t go hungry. Schools are a major source of day care that allows parent(s) to work and to have a career through which family income potentials increase. Schools are a location for children to socialize, to form friendships, to participate in teams, and to promote wellness. This is only a partial list, but I’m preaching to the choir with this column.

Science, though imperfect, has advanced in the 1 year since the shutdown. I am thrilled to see policy makers embracing a scientific basis for policy making. (I’ll be more thrilled if it actually happens.) There is now accumulated evidence of harm associated with children not being in schools. There is accumulated evidence that the absolute magnitude of illness transmitted in elementary schools is small, though I can’t find any researcher defining what is small enough. There is accumulated evidence that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in schools can be mitigated with a variety of interventions that include wearing masks, spacing desks, cohorting in small classes, good ventilation, and vaccines for the teachers. It is, however, unclear how much benefit comes from each intervention. That uncertainty makes it difficult for parents and teachers to assess whether, given limited financial resources, individual school districts have prepared adequately. Teachers, like pediatricians, are dedicated to doing what is best for children. Both teachers and pediatricians are aware that sometimes administrators and politicians take unfair advantage of this commitment to children.

There is an expectation that, with 130,000 schools in the United States, some fraction of them will have outbreaks that will generate illnesses, deaths, and bad publicity. The number and degree of these outbreaks will be best mitigated by lowering the number of new cases per day in the community. Estimates are that 89%-99% of children live in so-called red zones under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance – meaning there is a high level of community spread of the virus. In mid-February, the CDC released new guidelines for mitigating transmission within the schools. Those guidelines seemed to make it unlikely that schools in red zones could safely reopen, but over the following week, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky walked back that notion.

So, is it “safe” to reopen the schools? As a pediatrician, I have read more on this subject than the vast majority of people in my city. I have discussed the subject with colleagues who are far more informed than I. Still, I am in not in a position to synthesize all that research. I cannot advise neighbors, parents, or church groups about this subject. This column is not going to propose a solution. I will suggest a process based on professionalism and medical ethics.

The actors in this process need to be trustworthy. Medical residents are taught that patients/parents first need to see that you are committed (to benefiting them) before they can see that you are competent. Trust in the relationship with patients is maintained with truthfulness, by embracing the professional responsibilities of a fiduciary, and by expressing commitment and compassion.

Facts should be determined based on sound science. Values should be determined with input from all stakeholders. Decision-making based on facts and values should occur transparently within trusted institutions.

Which institutions should we trust?

My recommendation, biased by my experience, is to trust the CDC. It is composed of full-time, well-funded researchers (in basic science, in medicine, and in public health policy) who have dedicated years toward lofty goals. The CDC policy-making system has recently been pressured by inappropriate political maneuvering that has shaded its integrity.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also been providing guidance favoring reopening schools. Its committees are mostly composed of volunteers dedicated to improving the health of children. I’ve become slightly jaded by participation in the sausage-making behind its policy statements. I doubt that teachers are reassured by focusing attention on the AAP’s claims to advocate for children.

State education boards contain experts dedicated to the well-being of children. Local boards of education have less expertise and less ability to resist political persuasion, but offer disseminated decision-making.

Will parents and children heed the advice? So far, there are stories that schools which have reopened with optional and hybrid models have not seen the return of the masses. There are also many stories of schools that have stayed open throughout the pandemic without catastrophic consequences. In the near future, I would not expect more science to be persuasive. Finding a way forward will be more dependent on rebuilding trust in institutions.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

For the near future, it is hard to imagine anything having a larger impact on children’s health than the need to reopen schools.

There are many social determinants of health and many of those have been, appropriately, more strongly tied to schools than to health care. Academics are important, and those are best delivered by trained educators. Nutrition is important; hot lunch programs play an important role in ensuring children don’t go hungry. Schools are a major source of day care that allows parent(s) to work and to have a career through which family income potentials increase. Schools are a location for children to socialize, to form friendships, to participate in teams, and to promote wellness. This is only a partial list, but I’m preaching to the choir with this column.

Science, though imperfect, has advanced in the 1 year since the shutdown. I am thrilled to see policy makers embracing a scientific basis for policy making. (I’ll be more thrilled if it actually happens.) There is now accumulated evidence of harm associated with children not being in schools. There is accumulated evidence that the absolute magnitude of illness transmitted in elementary schools is small, though I can’t find any researcher defining what is small enough. There is accumulated evidence that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in schools can be mitigated with a variety of interventions that include wearing masks, spacing desks, cohorting in small classes, good ventilation, and vaccines for the teachers. It is, however, unclear how much benefit comes from each intervention. That uncertainty makes it difficult for parents and teachers to assess whether, given limited financial resources, individual school districts have prepared adequately. Teachers, like pediatricians, are dedicated to doing what is best for children. Both teachers and pediatricians are aware that sometimes administrators and politicians take unfair advantage of this commitment to children.

There is an expectation that, with 130,000 schools in the United States, some fraction of them will have outbreaks that will generate illnesses, deaths, and bad publicity. The number and degree of these outbreaks will be best mitigated by lowering the number of new cases per day in the community. Estimates are that 89%-99% of children live in so-called red zones under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance – meaning there is a high level of community spread of the virus. In mid-February, the CDC released new guidelines for mitigating transmission within the schools. Those guidelines seemed to make it unlikely that schools in red zones could safely reopen, but over the following week, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky walked back that notion.

So, is it “safe” to reopen the schools? As a pediatrician, I have read more on this subject than the vast majority of people in my city. I have discussed the subject with colleagues who are far more informed than I. Still, I am in not in a position to synthesize all that research. I cannot advise neighbors, parents, or church groups about this subject. This column is not going to propose a solution. I will suggest a process based on professionalism and medical ethics.

The actors in this process need to be trustworthy. Medical residents are taught that patients/parents first need to see that you are committed (to benefiting them) before they can see that you are competent. Trust in the relationship with patients is maintained with truthfulness, by embracing the professional responsibilities of a fiduciary, and by expressing commitment and compassion.

Facts should be determined based on sound science. Values should be determined with input from all stakeholders. Decision-making based on facts and values should occur transparently within trusted institutions.

Which institutions should we trust?

My recommendation, biased by my experience, is to trust the CDC. It is composed of full-time, well-funded researchers (in basic science, in medicine, and in public health policy) who have dedicated years toward lofty goals. The CDC policy-making system has recently been pressured by inappropriate political maneuvering that has shaded its integrity.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also been providing guidance favoring reopening schools. Its committees are mostly composed of volunteers dedicated to improving the health of children. I’ve become slightly jaded by participation in the sausage-making behind its policy statements. I doubt that teachers are reassured by focusing attention on the AAP’s claims to advocate for children.

State education boards contain experts dedicated to the well-being of children. Local boards of education have less expertise and less ability to resist political persuasion, but offer disseminated decision-making.

Will parents and children heed the advice? So far, there are stories that schools which have reopened with optional and hybrid models have not seen the return of the masses. There are also many stories of schools that have stayed open throughout the pandemic without catastrophic consequences. In the near future, I would not expect more science to be persuasive. Finding a way forward will be more dependent on rebuilding trust in institutions.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

For the near future, it is hard to imagine anything having a larger impact on children’s health than the need to reopen schools.

There are many social determinants of health and many of those have been, appropriately, more strongly tied to schools than to health care. Academics are important, and those are best delivered by trained educators. Nutrition is important; hot lunch programs play an important role in ensuring children don’t go hungry. Schools are a major source of day care that allows parent(s) to work and to have a career through which family income potentials increase. Schools are a location for children to socialize, to form friendships, to participate in teams, and to promote wellness. This is only a partial list, but I’m preaching to the choir with this column.

Science, though imperfect, has advanced in the 1 year since the shutdown. I am thrilled to see policy makers embracing a scientific basis for policy making. (I’ll be more thrilled if it actually happens.) There is now accumulated evidence of harm associated with children not being in schools. There is accumulated evidence that the absolute magnitude of illness transmitted in elementary schools is small, though I can’t find any researcher defining what is small enough. There is accumulated evidence that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in schools can be mitigated with a variety of interventions that include wearing masks, spacing desks, cohorting in small classes, good ventilation, and vaccines for the teachers. It is, however, unclear how much benefit comes from each intervention. That uncertainty makes it difficult for parents and teachers to assess whether, given limited financial resources, individual school districts have prepared adequately. Teachers, like pediatricians, are dedicated to doing what is best for children. Both teachers and pediatricians are aware that sometimes administrators and politicians take unfair advantage of this commitment to children.

There is an expectation that, with 130,000 schools in the United States, some fraction of them will have outbreaks that will generate illnesses, deaths, and bad publicity. The number and degree of these outbreaks will be best mitigated by lowering the number of new cases per day in the community. Estimates are that 89%-99% of children live in so-called red zones under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance – meaning there is a high level of community spread of the virus. In mid-February, the CDC released new guidelines for mitigating transmission within the schools. Those guidelines seemed to make it unlikely that schools in red zones could safely reopen, but over the following week, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky walked back that notion.

So, is it “safe” to reopen the schools? As a pediatrician, I have read more on this subject than the vast majority of people in my city. I have discussed the subject with colleagues who are far more informed than I. Still, I am in not in a position to synthesize all that research. I cannot advise neighbors, parents, or church groups about this subject. This column is not going to propose a solution. I will suggest a process based on professionalism and medical ethics.

The actors in this process need to be trustworthy. Medical residents are taught that patients/parents first need to see that you are committed (to benefiting them) before they can see that you are competent. Trust in the relationship with patients is maintained with truthfulness, by embracing the professional responsibilities of a fiduciary, and by expressing commitment and compassion.

Facts should be determined based on sound science. Values should be determined with input from all stakeholders. Decision-making based on facts and values should occur transparently within trusted institutions.

Which institutions should we trust?

My recommendation, biased by my experience, is to trust the CDC. It is composed of full-time, well-funded researchers (in basic science, in medicine, and in public health policy) who have dedicated years toward lofty goals. The CDC policy-making system has recently been pressured by inappropriate political maneuvering that has shaded its integrity.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also been providing guidance favoring reopening schools. Its committees are mostly composed of volunteers dedicated to improving the health of children. I’ve become slightly jaded by participation in the sausage-making behind its policy statements. I doubt that teachers are reassured by focusing attention on the AAP’s claims to advocate for children.

State education boards contain experts dedicated to the well-being of children. Local boards of education have less expertise and less ability to resist political persuasion, but offer disseminated decision-making.

Will parents and children heed the advice? So far, there are stories that schools which have reopened with optional and hybrid models have not seen the return of the masses. There are also many stories of schools that have stayed open throughout the pandemic without catastrophic consequences. In the near future, I would not expect more science to be persuasive. Finding a way forward will be more dependent on rebuilding trust in institutions.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Physicians who work in the field of professional discipline have thought about the limits of propriety in making charges of impropriety. We (R.S.E. and R.S.K.) asked the American Psychiatric Association’s Ethics Committee to expand upon its existing commentary on innovative practice and making allegations of professional misconduct. We used the committee’s answers to our questions as the basis for the arguments we are making in this piece.

The APA’s Ethics Committee uses clear-cut benchmarks to define innovative medical care: “The standards of care ... evolve with evidence from research and observations of practice. Among the expected supports for innovative practice are scientific testing, peer-reviewed publication, replication, and broad or widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific or professional community.” When it comes to off-label prescribing for any medical condition, it is easy enough to ascertain whether clinical reports have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Two of the biggest blockbusters in psychiatry, chlorpromazine and lithium, began as drugs used for other conditions almost since the inception of our field. In other words, the use of these drugs for mental illness began, in today’s jargon, as off-label. We practitioners of psychiatry live in the land of off-label prescribing and have always comfortably done so. In fact, almost all of medicine does. The key in today’s world of best-practice medicine is obtaining a truly informed consent.

For COVID-19, our incredible psychotropic molecules may once again be doing some trail-blazing off-label work. Late last year, Eric J. Lenze, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Healthy Mind Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, reported in a preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 that those treated with fluvoxamine “had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days,” compared with those on placebo (JAMA. 2020;324[22]:2292-300). We were heartened to see Dr. Lenze discuss his work on a recent “60 Minutes” segment. David Seftel, MD, MBA, a clinician who administered fluvoxamine as early treatment for a COVID-19 outbreak that occurred in a community of racetrack employees and their families in the San Francisco Bay Area, also was featured. Rather than waiting for the results of large clinical trials, Dr. Lenze and Dr. Seftel proceeded, based on reports published in peer-reviewed journals, to treat patients whose lives were at risk.

If we find ourselves strongly disagreeing about the science of off-label prescribing, the proper response is to critique methodologies, not the character or competence of colleagues. The APA Ethics Committee discourages use of the media as a forum for making allegations of incompetent or unethical practice: “Judgments regarding violations of established norms of ethical or professional conduct should be made not by individuals but by bodies authorized to take evidence and make informed decisions.”

At least one state legislature is taking action to protect patients’ access to the doctors they trust. In Arizona, SB 1416 passed in the Senate and is now working its way through the House. This bill would prohibit medical boards from disciplining doctors for speaking out about or prescribing off-label drugs when a reasonable basis for use exists.

Physicians in all specialties would do well to studiously observe the conventions of their profession when it comes to critiquing their colleagues. Psychological research on the “backfire effect” suggests that heavy-handed campaigns to enforce medical consensus will only harden minds in ways that neither advance science nor improve the quality of clinical decision-making.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Physicians who work in the field of professional discipline have thought about the limits of propriety in making charges of impropriety. We (R.S.E. and R.S.K.) asked the American Psychiatric Association’s Ethics Committee to expand upon its existing commentary on innovative practice and making allegations of professional misconduct. We used the committee’s answers to our questions as the basis for the arguments we are making in this piece.

The APA’s Ethics Committee uses clear-cut benchmarks to define innovative medical care: “The standards of care ... evolve with evidence from research and observations of practice. Among the expected supports for innovative practice are scientific testing, peer-reviewed publication, replication, and broad or widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific or professional community.” When it comes to off-label prescribing for any medical condition, it is easy enough to ascertain whether clinical reports have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Two of the biggest blockbusters in psychiatry, chlorpromazine and lithium, began as drugs used for other conditions almost since the inception of our field. In other words, the use of these drugs for mental illness began, in today’s jargon, as off-label. We practitioners of psychiatry live in the land of off-label prescribing and have always comfortably done so. In fact, almost all of medicine does. The key in today’s world of best-practice medicine is obtaining a truly informed consent.

For COVID-19, our incredible psychotropic molecules may once again be doing some trail-blazing off-label work. Late last year, Eric J. Lenze, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Healthy Mind Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, reported in a preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 that those treated with fluvoxamine “had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days,” compared with those on placebo (JAMA. 2020;324[22]:2292-300). We were heartened to see Dr. Lenze discuss his work on a recent “60 Minutes” segment. David Seftel, MD, MBA, a clinician who administered fluvoxamine as early treatment for a COVID-19 outbreak that occurred in a community of racetrack employees and their families in the San Francisco Bay Area, also was featured. Rather than waiting for the results of large clinical trials, Dr. Lenze and Dr. Seftel proceeded, based on reports published in peer-reviewed journals, to treat patients whose lives were at risk.

If we find ourselves strongly disagreeing about the science of off-label prescribing, the proper response is to critique methodologies, not the character or competence of colleagues. The APA Ethics Committee discourages use of the media as a forum for making allegations of incompetent or unethical practice: “Judgments regarding violations of established norms of ethical or professional conduct should be made not by individuals but by bodies authorized to take evidence and make informed decisions.”

At least one state legislature is taking action to protect patients’ access to the doctors they trust. In Arizona, SB 1416 passed in the Senate and is now working its way through the House. This bill would prohibit medical boards from disciplining doctors for speaking out about or prescribing off-label drugs when a reasonable basis for use exists.

Physicians in all specialties would do well to studiously observe the conventions of their profession when it comes to critiquing their colleagues. Psychological research on the “backfire effect” suggests that heavy-handed campaigns to enforce medical consensus will only harden minds in ways that neither advance science nor improve the quality of clinical decision-making.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Physicians who work in the field of professional discipline have thought about the limits of propriety in making charges of impropriety. We (R.S.E. and R.S.K.) asked the American Psychiatric Association’s Ethics Committee to expand upon its existing commentary on innovative practice and making allegations of professional misconduct. We used the committee’s answers to our questions as the basis for the arguments we are making in this piece.

The APA’s Ethics Committee uses clear-cut benchmarks to define innovative medical care: “The standards of care ... evolve with evidence from research and observations of practice. Among the expected supports for innovative practice are scientific testing, peer-reviewed publication, replication, and broad or widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific or professional community.” When it comes to off-label prescribing for any medical condition, it is easy enough to ascertain whether clinical reports have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Two of the biggest blockbusters in psychiatry, chlorpromazine and lithium, began as drugs used for other conditions almost since the inception of our field. In other words, the use of these drugs for mental illness began, in today’s jargon, as off-label. We practitioners of psychiatry live in the land of off-label prescribing and have always comfortably done so. In fact, almost all of medicine does. The key in today’s world of best-practice medicine is obtaining a truly informed consent.

For COVID-19, our incredible psychotropic molecules may once again be doing some trail-blazing off-label work. Late last year, Eric J. Lenze, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Healthy Mind Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, reported in a preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 that those treated with fluvoxamine “had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days,” compared with those on placebo (JAMA. 2020;324[22]:2292-300). We were heartened to see Dr. Lenze discuss his work on a recent “60 Minutes” segment. David Seftel, MD, MBA, a clinician who administered fluvoxamine as early treatment for a COVID-19 outbreak that occurred in a community of racetrack employees and their families in the San Francisco Bay Area, also was featured. Rather than waiting for the results of large clinical trials, Dr. Lenze and Dr. Seftel proceeded, based on reports published in peer-reviewed journals, to treat patients whose lives were at risk.

If we find ourselves strongly disagreeing about the science of off-label prescribing, the proper response is to critique methodologies, not the character or competence of colleagues. The APA Ethics Committee discourages use of the media as a forum for making allegations of incompetent or unethical practice: “Judgments regarding violations of established norms of ethical or professional conduct should be made not by individuals but by bodies authorized to take evidence and make informed decisions.”

At least one state legislature is taking action to protect patients’ access to the doctors they trust. In Arizona, SB 1416 passed in the Senate and is now working its way through the House. This bill would prohibit medical boards from disciplining doctors for speaking out about or prescribing off-label drugs when a reasonable basis for use exists.

Physicians in all specialties would do well to studiously observe the conventions of their profession when it comes to critiquing their colleagues. Psychological research on the “backfire effect” suggests that heavy-handed campaigns to enforce medical consensus will only harden minds in ways that neither advance science nor improve the quality of clinical decision-making.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

In my last column, I explained how I’m like Tom Brady. I’m not really. Brady is a Super Bowl–winning quarterback worth over $200 million. No, I’m like Oprah. Well, trying anyway.

Brady and Oprah, in addition to being gazillionaires, have in common that they’re arguably the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) in their fields. Watching Oprah interview Meghan Markle and Prince Harry was like watching Tom Brady on the jumbotron – she made it look easy. Her ability to create conversation and coax information from guests is hall-of-fame good. But although they are both admirable, trying to be like Brady is useful only for next Thanksgiving when you’re trying to beat your cousins from Massachusetts in touch football. Trying to be like Oprah can help you be better in clinic tomorrow. If we break down what she’s doing, it’s just fundamentals done exceedingly well.

1. Prepare ahead. It’s clear that Oprah has binders of notes about her guests and thoroughly reviewed them before she invites them to sit down. We should do the same. Open the chart and read as much as you can before you open the door. Have important information in your head so you don’t have to break from your interview to refer to it.

2. Sprinkle pleasantry. She’d never start an interview with: So why are you here? Nor should we. Even one nonscripted question or comment can help build a little rapport before getting to the work.

3. Be brief. Oprah gets her question out fast, then gets out of the way. And as a bonus, this is the easiest place to shave a few minutes from your appointments from your own end. Think for a second before you speak and try to find the shortest route to your question. Try to keep your questions to just a sentence or two.

4. Stay on it. Once you’ve discovered something relevant, stay with it, resisting the urge to finish the review of symptoms. This is not just to make a diagnosis, but as importantly, trying to diagnose “the real reason” for the visit. Then, when the question is done, own the transition. Oprah uses: “Let’s move on.” This is a bit abrupt for us, but it can be helpful if used sparingly and gently. I might soften this a little by adding “I want to be sure we have enough time to get through everything for you.”

5. Wait. A few seconds seems an eternity on the air (and in clinic), but sometimes the silent pause is just what’s needed to help the patient expand and share.

6. Be nonjudgmental. Most of us believe we’re pretty good at this, yet, it’s sometimes a blind spot. It’s easy to blame the obese patient for his stasis dermatitis or the hidradenitis patient who hasn’t stop smoking for her cysts. It also helps to be nontransactional. If you make patients feel that you’re asking questions only to extract information, you’ll never reach Oprah level.

7. Be in the moment. It is difficult, but when possible, avoid typing notes while you’re still interviewing. We’re not just there to get the facts, we’re also trying to get the story and that sometimes takes really listening.

I’m no more like Oprah than Brady, of course. But it is more fun to close my eyes and imagine myself being her when I see my next patient. That is, until Thanksgiving. Watch out, Bedards from Attleboro.

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

In my last column, I explained how I’m like Tom Brady. I’m not really. Brady is a Super Bowl–winning quarterback worth over $200 million. No, I’m like Oprah. Well, trying anyway.

Brady and Oprah, in addition to being gazillionaires, have in common that they’re arguably the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) in their fields. Watching Oprah interview Meghan Markle and Prince Harry was like watching Tom Brady on the jumbotron – she made it look easy. Her ability to create conversation and coax information from guests is hall-of-fame good. But although they are both admirable, trying to be like Brady is useful only for next Thanksgiving when you’re trying to beat your cousins from Massachusetts in touch football. Trying to be like Oprah can help you be better in clinic tomorrow. If we break down what she’s doing, it’s just fundamentals done exceedingly well.

1. Prepare ahead. It’s clear that Oprah has binders of notes about her guests and thoroughly reviewed them before she invites them to sit down. We should do the same. Open the chart and read as much as you can before you open the door. Have important information in your head so you don’t have to break from your interview to refer to it.

2. Sprinkle pleasantry. She’d never start an interview with: So why are you here? Nor should we. Even one nonscripted question or comment can help build a little rapport before getting to the work.

3. Be brief. Oprah gets her question out fast, then gets out of the way. And as a bonus, this is the easiest place to shave a few minutes from your appointments from your own end. Think for a second before you speak and try to find the shortest route to your question. Try to keep your questions to just a sentence or two.

4. Stay on it. Once you’ve discovered something relevant, stay with it, resisting the urge to finish the review of symptoms. This is not just to make a diagnosis, but as importantly, trying to diagnose “the real reason” for the visit. Then, when the question is done, own the transition. Oprah uses: “Let’s move on.” This is a bit abrupt for us, but it can be helpful if used sparingly and gently. I might soften this a little by adding “I want to be sure we have enough time to get through everything for you.”

5. Wait. A few seconds seems an eternity on the air (and in clinic), but sometimes the silent pause is just what’s needed to help the patient expand and share.

6. Be nonjudgmental. Most of us believe we’re pretty good at this, yet, it’s sometimes a blind spot. It’s easy to blame the obese patient for his stasis dermatitis or the hidradenitis patient who hasn’t stop smoking for her cysts. It also helps to be nontransactional. If you make patients feel that you’re asking questions only to extract information, you’ll never reach Oprah level.

7. Be in the moment. It is difficult, but when possible, avoid typing notes while you’re still interviewing. We’re not just there to get the facts, we’re also trying to get the story and that sometimes takes really listening.

I’m no more like Oprah than Brady, of course. But it is more fun to close my eyes and imagine myself being her when I see my next patient. That is, until Thanksgiving. Watch out, Bedards from Attleboro.

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

In my last column, I explained how I’m like Tom Brady. I’m not really. Brady is a Super Bowl–winning quarterback worth over $200 million. No, I’m like Oprah. Well, trying anyway.

Brady and Oprah, in addition to being gazillionaires, have in common that they’re arguably the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) in their fields. Watching Oprah interview Meghan Markle and Prince Harry was like watching Tom Brady on the jumbotron – she made it look easy. Her ability to create conversation and coax information from guests is hall-of-fame good. But although they are both admirable, trying to be like Brady is useful only for next Thanksgiving when you’re trying to beat your cousins from Massachusetts in touch football. Trying to be like Oprah can help you be better in clinic tomorrow. If we break down what she’s doing, it’s just fundamentals done exceedingly well.

1. Prepare ahead. It’s clear that Oprah has binders of notes about her guests and thoroughly reviewed them before she invites them to sit down. We should do the same. Open the chart and read as much as you can before you open the door. Have important information in your head so you don’t have to break from your interview to refer to it.

2. Sprinkle pleasantry. She’d never start an interview with: So why are you here? Nor should we. Even one nonscripted question or comment can help build a little rapport before getting to the work.

3. Be brief. Oprah gets her question out fast, then gets out of the way. And as a bonus, this is the easiest place to shave a few minutes from your appointments from your own end. Think for a second before you speak and try to find the shortest route to your question. Try to keep your questions to just a sentence or two.

4. Stay on it. Once you’ve discovered something relevant, stay with it, resisting the urge to finish the review of symptoms. This is not just to make a diagnosis, but as importantly, trying to diagnose “the real reason” for the visit. Then, when the question is done, own the transition. Oprah uses: “Let’s move on.” This is a bit abrupt for us, but it can be helpful if used sparingly and gently. I might soften this a little by adding “I want to be sure we have enough time to get through everything for you.”

5. Wait. A few seconds seems an eternity on the air (and in clinic), but sometimes the silent pause is just what’s needed to help the patient expand and share.

6. Be nonjudgmental. Most of us believe we’re pretty good at this, yet, it’s sometimes a blind spot. It’s easy to blame the obese patient for his stasis dermatitis or the hidradenitis patient who hasn’t stop smoking for her cysts. It also helps to be nontransactional. If you make patients feel that you’re asking questions only to extract information, you’ll never reach Oprah level.

7. Be in the moment. It is difficult, but when possible, avoid typing notes while you’re still interviewing. We’re not just there to get the facts, we’re also trying to get the story and that sometimes takes really listening.

I’m no more like Oprah than Brady, of course. But it is more fun to close my eyes and imagine myself being her when I see my next patient. That is, until Thanksgiving. Watch out, Bedards from Attleboro.

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