User login
Without Ginsburg, judicial threats to the ACA, reproductive rights heighten
On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”
I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”
Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.
Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.
“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”
Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil.
Let’s take them one at a time.
The ACA under fire – again
The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.
Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.
Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.
Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.
While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.
But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.
At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.
Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.
But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.
A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.
As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
Reproductive rights
A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.
Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.
Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.
But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.
And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.
For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.
“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”
I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”
Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.
Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.
“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”
Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil.
Let’s take them one at a time.
The ACA under fire – again
The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.
Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.
Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.
Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.
While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.
But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.
At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.
Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.
But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.
A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.
As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
Reproductive rights
A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.
Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.
Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.
But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.
And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.
For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.
“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”
I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”
Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.
Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.
“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”
Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil.
Let’s take them one at a time.
The ACA under fire – again
The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.
Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.
Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.
Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.
While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.
But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.
At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.
Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.
But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.
A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.
As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
Reproductive rights
A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.
Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.
Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.
But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.
And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.
For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.
“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
New acute pain guidelines from the ACP and AAFP have limitations
The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting.
According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.
In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).
The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.
Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.
When physical therapy is needed
Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.
Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.
Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
How pain affects mental health
Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.
Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.
Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.
They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.
We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.
SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.
The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting.
According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.
In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).
The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.
Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.
When physical therapy is needed
Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.
Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.
Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
How pain affects mental health
Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.
Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.
Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.
They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.
We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.
SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.
The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting.
According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.
In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).
The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.
Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.
When physical therapy is needed
Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.
Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.
Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
How pain affects mental health
Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.
Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.
Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.
They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.
We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.
SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.
Physician reimbursement 2021: Who are the big winners?
Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.
But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.
Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.
The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians.
Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.
According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.
The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.
These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.
If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.
The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.
For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.
Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.
The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.
A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.
The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.
Other key changes include the following:
- The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
- Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
- Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
- A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”
To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.
Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.
The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.
Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.
CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.
MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.
The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.
CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.
The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.
Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.
Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.
The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.
If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).
This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.
But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.
Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.
The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians.
Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.
According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.
The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.
These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.
If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.
The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.
For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.
Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.
The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.
A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.
The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.
Other key changes include the following:
- The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
- Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
- Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
- A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”
To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.
Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.
The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.
Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.
CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.
MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.
The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.
CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.
The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.
Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.
Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.
The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.
If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).
This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.
But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.
Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.
The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians.
Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.
According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.
The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.
These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.
If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.
The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.
For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.
Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.
The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.
A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.
The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.
Other key changes include the following:
- The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
- Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
- Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
- A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”
To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.
Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.
The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.
Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.
CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.
MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.
The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.
CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.
The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.
Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.
Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.
The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.
If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).
This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Too many patient call messages
In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.
Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.
There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).
The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.
Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.
Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
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.” Email him at [email protected].
In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.
Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.
There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).
The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.
Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.
Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
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.” Email him at [email protected].
In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.
Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.
There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).
The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.
Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.
Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
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.” Email him at [email protected].
Zeus’s thunderbolt and work-life balance
Like most of you, I had always thought I was invincible and would live forever, but the kids had gotten out of the house (at least for now) and Medicare and Social Security were looming, so it was time to redo the will and think about estate planning. And then I met Zeus’ thunderbolt!
For the last couple of years, I had been getting dizzy when pulling weeds, and 2 months ago, felt like I had been hit by a truck. One hour of yard work and I had to lie in the grass and pant like a dog, or pass out. My internist and I both had COVID-19 on the brain, but all tests were negative; however, the chest x-ray showed atelectasis. What? So I had good and bad days, and noticed that my pulse was 150 when I climbed two flights of stairs. Finally, my wife insisted I get an EKG, which showed atrial flutter/fibrillation and a new right-bundle branch block.
I was ruled out for infarction or a pulmonary embolism and after 6 days on heparin, confirmation that I had clean coronaries (yes, statins should be in the water), and no atrial clot, I got to meet Zeus. They all say, “oh you won’t remember it” or “it won’t hurt.” But let me tell you, the closest thing I recall to having 200 joules shot through you from front to back is being kicked across the milk barn by an angry cow. I hollered, I don’t recall exactly what, but hey, Mr. Sinus Rhythm, my new long-lost friend was back.
I feel great again and have since had an ablation (no big deal, but they poke a hole in your atrium!) and have been fitted with a sleep snorkel, and can once again work all day in the yard.
Personally, meeting Zeus has changed my perspective on life, retirement and estate planning, and personal perspective on work. I highly recommend the book, “Wealth Planning for the Modern Physician: Residency to Retirement.” It is a pretty easy read and an eye opener. If taxes increase, and I don’t see how they can’t considering pandemic expenses, careful planning will be more important than ever.
After careful consideration, we are going to give most of our money to charities (institutions my wife and I we figure we owe a debt), such as colleges and residency programs. I am also going to make an active effort to cut back on work I don’t enjoy (goodbye endless committee meetings!), though I do enjoy my patients very much and will continue to practice. I relish the conversation and interaction, but hate the human relations part of practice management. I’m not much of a golfer, but enjoy gardening, writing, and public speaking. I love my children a lot, but I am still waiting for them to make their personal orbit around the universe so they can come home and be close again. We may also build a house in Florida with a terrace where we can garden without the deer’s help.
There was a recent survey that showed a lot of physicians are reconsidering their practice environments amid COVID-19 and as many as 5% considering retirement. It is also the wrong time for physicians to be retiring when 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, and some of them will need thunderbolts like me.
I also enjoy writing this column and sharing my life with you. It is an incredibly special thing to be able to openly share one’s loves, fears, and hopes with colleagues. So keep practicing, remember not all hoof beats are from COVID-19, try not to spoil the kids too much, keep one eye on the calendar, and beware Zeus’ thunderbolt!
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. Write to him at [email protected].
Like most of you, I had always thought I was invincible and would live forever, but the kids had gotten out of the house (at least for now) and Medicare and Social Security were looming, so it was time to redo the will and think about estate planning. And then I met Zeus’ thunderbolt!
For the last couple of years, I had been getting dizzy when pulling weeds, and 2 months ago, felt like I had been hit by a truck. One hour of yard work and I had to lie in the grass and pant like a dog, or pass out. My internist and I both had COVID-19 on the brain, but all tests were negative; however, the chest x-ray showed atelectasis. What? So I had good and bad days, and noticed that my pulse was 150 when I climbed two flights of stairs. Finally, my wife insisted I get an EKG, which showed atrial flutter/fibrillation and a new right-bundle branch block.
I was ruled out for infarction or a pulmonary embolism and after 6 days on heparin, confirmation that I had clean coronaries (yes, statins should be in the water), and no atrial clot, I got to meet Zeus. They all say, “oh you won’t remember it” or “it won’t hurt.” But let me tell you, the closest thing I recall to having 200 joules shot through you from front to back is being kicked across the milk barn by an angry cow. I hollered, I don’t recall exactly what, but hey, Mr. Sinus Rhythm, my new long-lost friend was back.
I feel great again and have since had an ablation (no big deal, but they poke a hole in your atrium!) and have been fitted with a sleep snorkel, and can once again work all day in the yard.
Personally, meeting Zeus has changed my perspective on life, retirement and estate planning, and personal perspective on work. I highly recommend the book, “Wealth Planning for the Modern Physician: Residency to Retirement.” It is a pretty easy read and an eye opener. If taxes increase, and I don’t see how they can’t considering pandemic expenses, careful planning will be more important than ever.
After careful consideration, we are going to give most of our money to charities (institutions my wife and I we figure we owe a debt), such as colleges and residency programs. I am also going to make an active effort to cut back on work I don’t enjoy (goodbye endless committee meetings!), though I do enjoy my patients very much and will continue to practice. I relish the conversation and interaction, but hate the human relations part of practice management. I’m not much of a golfer, but enjoy gardening, writing, and public speaking. I love my children a lot, but I am still waiting for them to make their personal orbit around the universe so they can come home and be close again. We may also build a house in Florida with a terrace where we can garden without the deer’s help.
There was a recent survey that showed a lot of physicians are reconsidering their practice environments amid COVID-19 and as many as 5% considering retirement. It is also the wrong time for physicians to be retiring when 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, and some of them will need thunderbolts like me.
I also enjoy writing this column and sharing my life with you. It is an incredibly special thing to be able to openly share one’s loves, fears, and hopes with colleagues. So keep practicing, remember not all hoof beats are from COVID-19, try not to spoil the kids too much, keep one eye on the calendar, and beware Zeus’ thunderbolt!
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. Write to him at [email protected].
Like most of you, I had always thought I was invincible and would live forever, but the kids had gotten out of the house (at least for now) and Medicare and Social Security were looming, so it was time to redo the will and think about estate planning. And then I met Zeus’ thunderbolt!
For the last couple of years, I had been getting dizzy when pulling weeds, and 2 months ago, felt like I had been hit by a truck. One hour of yard work and I had to lie in the grass and pant like a dog, or pass out. My internist and I both had COVID-19 on the brain, but all tests were negative; however, the chest x-ray showed atelectasis. What? So I had good and bad days, and noticed that my pulse was 150 when I climbed two flights of stairs. Finally, my wife insisted I get an EKG, which showed atrial flutter/fibrillation and a new right-bundle branch block.
I was ruled out for infarction or a pulmonary embolism and after 6 days on heparin, confirmation that I had clean coronaries (yes, statins should be in the water), and no atrial clot, I got to meet Zeus. They all say, “oh you won’t remember it” or “it won’t hurt.” But let me tell you, the closest thing I recall to having 200 joules shot through you from front to back is being kicked across the milk barn by an angry cow. I hollered, I don’t recall exactly what, but hey, Mr. Sinus Rhythm, my new long-lost friend was back.
I feel great again and have since had an ablation (no big deal, but they poke a hole in your atrium!) and have been fitted with a sleep snorkel, and can once again work all day in the yard.
Personally, meeting Zeus has changed my perspective on life, retirement and estate planning, and personal perspective on work. I highly recommend the book, “Wealth Planning for the Modern Physician: Residency to Retirement.” It is a pretty easy read and an eye opener. If taxes increase, and I don’t see how they can’t considering pandemic expenses, careful planning will be more important than ever.
After careful consideration, we are going to give most of our money to charities (institutions my wife and I we figure we owe a debt), such as colleges and residency programs. I am also going to make an active effort to cut back on work I don’t enjoy (goodbye endless committee meetings!), though I do enjoy my patients very much and will continue to practice. I relish the conversation and interaction, but hate the human relations part of practice management. I’m not much of a golfer, but enjoy gardening, writing, and public speaking. I love my children a lot, but I am still waiting for them to make their personal orbit around the universe so they can come home and be close again. We may also build a house in Florida with a terrace where we can garden without the deer’s help.
There was a recent survey that showed a lot of physicians are reconsidering their practice environments amid COVID-19 and as many as 5% considering retirement. It is also the wrong time for physicians to be retiring when 10,000 baby boomers a day are turning 65, and some of them will need thunderbolts like me.
I also enjoy writing this column and sharing my life with you. It is an incredibly special thing to be able to openly share one’s loves, fears, and hopes with colleagues. So keep practicing, remember not all hoof beats are from COVID-19, try not to spoil the kids too much, keep one eye on the calendar, and beware Zeus’ thunderbolt!
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. Write to him at [email protected].
Excessive screen time can harm a child’s eyesight
As an ophthalmologist who’s been performing vision correction surgery in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 20 years, I want to address a rising concern I’ve seen among parents I’ve recently treated who currently have kids at home attending virtual classroom instruction.
Many of these parents are asking me if excessive screen time can be harmful to their children’s developing vision, especially if they are potentially genetically predisposed to myopia – also known as nearsightedness. While the short answer is, yes it can,
Eye fatigue, also called digital eye strain, is a physical eye discomfort that is caused by excessive screen use, and is a common condition in both children and adults.
Today, more than 40% of Americans are myopic, and that number is increasing at an alarming rate, especially among school-aged children. One in four parents have a child with myopia, and about three quarters of children with myopia were diagnosed between the ages of 3 and 12 years.
A recent ParentsTogether study found that a majority of parents surveyed said they are concerned about a massive spike in their children’s screen time during the coronavirus pandemic. And nearly half of respondents’ children (48%) are currently spending more than 6 hours per day online – a nearly 500% increase from before the crisis.
While glasses or contact lenses can correct a child’s vision, research in the journal Retina by the Ikuno Eye Center in Osaka, Japan, suggests that having severe myopia puts children at risk for a number of eye problems down the road, including retinal detachment, glaucoma, and macular degeneration. Research published in PLOS ONE found that working up close – such as reading or using a tablet – increased the odds of myopia. And in a report published in Ophthalmology, researchers studying myopia have estimated that, by 2050, about half the world’s population could be myopic.
Watch for warning signs
To determine if excessive screen time is affecting your child, there warning signs to watch out for including the following:
- Eye irritation.
- Watery eyes.
- Headaches.
- Intermittent blurry vision or double vision.
- Sore eyes.
- Difficulty concentrating.
- Sore neck, shoulders, and/or back.
- Increased sensitivity to light.
- Tiredness.
- Poor posture.
Use these approaches to reduce eye fatigue
To reduce eye fatigue associated with excessive screen exposure, parents should set limits on screen time if possible, and at minimum, schedule between 8 and 15 hours of outdoor activity per week. Screens should be at least 20 centimeters away from the child’s eyes, the child’s desk should be placed near a window, and she should be instructed to look outside every hour. Lastly, children should be kept in fully corrected glasses, not under corrected, and those glasses need to be worn full time.
As we plan the future of education in the age of COVID-19, I firmly believe that schools and policymakers must consider children’s vision needs while designing new initiatives. Schools, teachers, and parents must work together to incorporate eye health strategies that protect children as they learn online. By doing so, we can decrease the chance that a child’s vision becomes compromised from unwittingly staring into a screen for too many hours during the day.
Dr. Faktorovich is an ophthalmologist, founder of Pacific Vision Institute in San Francisco, California, and founder of the annual San Francisco Cornea, Cataract, and Refractive Surgery Symposium. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
As an ophthalmologist who’s been performing vision correction surgery in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 20 years, I want to address a rising concern I’ve seen among parents I’ve recently treated who currently have kids at home attending virtual classroom instruction.
Many of these parents are asking me if excessive screen time can be harmful to their children’s developing vision, especially if they are potentially genetically predisposed to myopia – also known as nearsightedness. While the short answer is, yes it can,
Eye fatigue, also called digital eye strain, is a physical eye discomfort that is caused by excessive screen use, and is a common condition in both children and adults.
Today, more than 40% of Americans are myopic, and that number is increasing at an alarming rate, especially among school-aged children. One in four parents have a child with myopia, and about three quarters of children with myopia were diagnosed between the ages of 3 and 12 years.
A recent ParentsTogether study found that a majority of parents surveyed said they are concerned about a massive spike in their children’s screen time during the coronavirus pandemic. And nearly half of respondents’ children (48%) are currently spending more than 6 hours per day online – a nearly 500% increase from before the crisis.
While glasses or contact lenses can correct a child’s vision, research in the journal Retina by the Ikuno Eye Center in Osaka, Japan, suggests that having severe myopia puts children at risk for a number of eye problems down the road, including retinal detachment, glaucoma, and macular degeneration. Research published in PLOS ONE found that working up close – such as reading or using a tablet – increased the odds of myopia. And in a report published in Ophthalmology, researchers studying myopia have estimated that, by 2050, about half the world’s population could be myopic.
Watch for warning signs
To determine if excessive screen time is affecting your child, there warning signs to watch out for including the following:
- Eye irritation.
- Watery eyes.
- Headaches.
- Intermittent blurry vision or double vision.
- Sore eyes.
- Difficulty concentrating.
- Sore neck, shoulders, and/or back.
- Increased sensitivity to light.
- Tiredness.
- Poor posture.
Use these approaches to reduce eye fatigue
To reduce eye fatigue associated with excessive screen exposure, parents should set limits on screen time if possible, and at minimum, schedule between 8 and 15 hours of outdoor activity per week. Screens should be at least 20 centimeters away from the child’s eyes, the child’s desk should be placed near a window, and she should be instructed to look outside every hour. Lastly, children should be kept in fully corrected glasses, not under corrected, and those glasses need to be worn full time.
As we plan the future of education in the age of COVID-19, I firmly believe that schools and policymakers must consider children’s vision needs while designing new initiatives. Schools, teachers, and parents must work together to incorporate eye health strategies that protect children as they learn online. By doing so, we can decrease the chance that a child’s vision becomes compromised from unwittingly staring into a screen for too many hours during the day.
Dr. Faktorovich is an ophthalmologist, founder of Pacific Vision Institute in San Francisco, California, and founder of the annual San Francisco Cornea, Cataract, and Refractive Surgery Symposium. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
As an ophthalmologist who’s been performing vision correction surgery in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 20 years, I want to address a rising concern I’ve seen among parents I’ve recently treated who currently have kids at home attending virtual classroom instruction.
Many of these parents are asking me if excessive screen time can be harmful to their children’s developing vision, especially if they are potentially genetically predisposed to myopia – also known as nearsightedness. While the short answer is, yes it can,
Eye fatigue, also called digital eye strain, is a physical eye discomfort that is caused by excessive screen use, and is a common condition in both children and adults.
Today, more than 40% of Americans are myopic, and that number is increasing at an alarming rate, especially among school-aged children. One in four parents have a child with myopia, and about three quarters of children with myopia were diagnosed between the ages of 3 and 12 years.
A recent ParentsTogether study found that a majority of parents surveyed said they are concerned about a massive spike in their children’s screen time during the coronavirus pandemic. And nearly half of respondents’ children (48%) are currently spending more than 6 hours per day online – a nearly 500% increase from before the crisis.
While glasses or contact lenses can correct a child’s vision, research in the journal Retina by the Ikuno Eye Center in Osaka, Japan, suggests that having severe myopia puts children at risk for a number of eye problems down the road, including retinal detachment, glaucoma, and macular degeneration. Research published in PLOS ONE found that working up close – such as reading or using a tablet – increased the odds of myopia. And in a report published in Ophthalmology, researchers studying myopia have estimated that, by 2050, about half the world’s population could be myopic.
Watch for warning signs
To determine if excessive screen time is affecting your child, there warning signs to watch out for including the following:
- Eye irritation.
- Watery eyes.
- Headaches.
- Intermittent blurry vision or double vision.
- Sore eyes.
- Difficulty concentrating.
- Sore neck, shoulders, and/or back.
- Increased sensitivity to light.
- Tiredness.
- Poor posture.
Use these approaches to reduce eye fatigue
To reduce eye fatigue associated with excessive screen exposure, parents should set limits on screen time if possible, and at minimum, schedule between 8 and 15 hours of outdoor activity per week. Screens should be at least 20 centimeters away from the child’s eyes, the child’s desk should be placed near a window, and she should be instructed to look outside every hour. Lastly, children should be kept in fully corrected glasses, not under corrected, and those glasses need to be worn full time.
As we plan the future of education in the age of COVID-19, I firmly believe that schools and policymakers must consider children’s vision needs while designing new initiatives. Schools, teachers, and parents must work together to incorporate eye health strategies that protect children as they learn online. By doing so, we can decrease the chance that a child’s vision becomes compromised from unwittingly staring into a screen for too many hours during the day.
Dr. Faktorovich is an ophthalmologist, founder of Pacific Vision Institute in San Francisco, California, and founder of the annual San Francisco Cornea, Cataract, and Refractive Surgery Symposium. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Evaluating a paper: Take care not to be confounded
In an earlier article, we looked at the meaning of the P value.1 This time we will look at another crucial statistical concept: that of confounding.
Confounding, as the name implies, is the recognition that crude associations may not reflect reality, but may instead be the result of outside factors. To illustrate, imagine that you want to study whether smoking increases the risk of death (in statistical terms, smoking is the exposure, and death is the outcome). You follow 5,000 people who smoke and 5,000 people who do not smoke for 10 years. At the end of the follow-up you find that about 40% of nonsmokers died, compared with only 10% of smokers. What do you conclude? At face value it would seem that smoking prevents death. However, before reaching this conclusion you might want to look at other factors. A look at the dataset shows that the average baseline age among nonsmokers was 60 years, whereas among smokers was 40 years. Could this be the cause of the results? You repeat the analysis based on strata of age (i.e., you compare smokers who were aged 60-70 years at baseline with nonsmokers who were aged 60-70 years, smokers who were aged 50-60 years with nonsmokers who were aged 50-60 years, and so on). What you find is that, for each category of age, the percentage of death among smokers was higher. Hence, you now reach the opposite conclusion, namely that smoking does increase the risk of death.
What happened? Why the different result? The answer is that, in this case, age was a confounder. What we initially thought was the effect of smoking was, in reality, at least in part, the effect of age. Overall, more deaths occurred among nonsmokers in the first analysis because they were older at baseline. When we compare people with similar age but who differ on smoking status, then the difference in mortality between them is not because of age (they have the same age) but smoking. Thus, in the second analysis we took age into account, or, in statistical terms, we adjusted for age, whereas the first analysis was, in statistical terms, an unadjusted or crude analysis. We should always be aware of studies with only crude results, because they might be biased/misleading.2
In the example above, age is not the only factor that might influence mortality. Alcohol or drug use, cancer or heart disease, body mass index, or physical activity can also influence death, independently of smoking. How to adjust for all these factors? We cannot do stratified analyses as we did above, because the strata would be too many. The solution is to do a multivariable regression analysis. This is a statistical tool to adjust for multiple factors (or variables) at the same time. When we adjust for all these factors, we are comparing the effect of smoking in people who are the same with regard to all these factors but who differ on smoking status. In statistical terms, we study the effect of smoking, keeping everything else constant. In this way we “isolate” the effect of smoking on death by taking into account all other factors, or, in statistical terms, we study the effect of smoking independently of other factors.
How many factors should be included in a multivariable analysis? As a general rule, the more the better, to reduce confounding. However, the number of variables to include in a regression model is limited by the sample size. The general rule of thumb is that, for every 10 events (for dichotomous outcomes) or 10 people (for continuous outcomes), we can add one variable in the model. If we add more variables than that, then in statistical terms the model becomes overfitted (i.e., it gives results that are specific to that dataset, but may not be applicable to other datasets). Overfitted models can be as biased/misleading as crude models.3
What are we to do about other factors that may affect mortality independently of smoking (e.g., diet), but which are not found in our dataset? Unfortunately, nothing. Since we do not have that information, we cannot adjust for it. In this case, diet is in statistical terms an unmeasured confounder. Unfortunately, in all observational studies there is always at least some degree of unmeasured confounding, because there may be many factors that can influence the outcome (and the exposure) which are not part of the dataset. While some statistical tools have been developed to estimate unmeasured confounding, and therefore interpret the results in its light, unmeasured confounding remains one of the major limitations of observational studies.4
Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on the other side do not have this problem in theory. With properly designed RCTs, all confounders, both measured and unmeasured, will be balanced between the two groups. For example, imagine an RCT where some patients are randomized to take drug A or drug B. Because patients are randomly allocated to one group or the other, it is assumed that all other factors are also randomly distributed. Hence, the two groups should be equal to each other with respect to all other factors except our active intervention, namely the type of drug they are taking (A or B). For this reason, in RCTs there is no need to adjust for multiple factors with a multivariable regression analysis, and crude unadjusted results can be presented as unbiased.
There is however a caveat. What happens if one patient who was randomized to take drug A takes drug B instead? Should she still be counted in analysis under drug A (as randomized) or under drug B (as she took it)? The usual practice is to do this and present both. In the first case, we will have the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, and in the second case, the per-protocol analysis (PPA). The advantage of the ITT is that it keeps the strength of randomization, namely the balancing of confounders, and therefore can present unbiased results. The advantage of the PPA is that it measures what was actually done in reality. However, in this case there is a departure from the original randomization, and hence there is the possibility of introducing confounding, because now patients are not randomly allocated to one treatment or the other. The larger the departure from randomization, the more probable the introduction of bias/confounding. For example, what if patients with more severe disease took drug A, even though they were randomized to take drug B? That will have an influence the outcome. For this reason, outcomes of the ITT analysis are considered the main results of RCTs, because PPA results can be confounded.
In summary, when reading studies, do not simply accept the results as they are presented, but rather ask yourself: “Could they be confounded by other factors, and therefore be unreliable? What steps did the authors take to reduce confounding? If they presented only crude analyses, and this was not justified by a RCT design, do they recognize it as a major limitation?” There are many nuances in every paper that can be appreciated only through a careful reading of the methods section. Hopefully, this article can shed some light on these issues and help the readers to not be confounded.
References
1. The P value: What to make of it? A simple guide for the uninitiated. GI and Hepatology News. 2019 Sep 23. https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/208601/mixed-topics/p-value-what-make-it-simple-guide-uninitiated
2. VanderWeele TJ et al. Ann Stat. 2013 Feb;41(1):196-220.
3. Concato J et al. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Feb 1;118(3):201-10.
4. VanderWeele TJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Aug 15;167(4):268-74.
Dr. Jovani is a therapeutic endoscopy fellow in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
In an earlier article, we looked at the meaning of the P value.1 This time we will look at another crucial statistical concept: that of confounding.
Confounding, as the name implies, is the recognition that crude associations may not reflect reality, but may instead be the result of outside factors. To illustrate, imagine that you want to study whether smoking increases the risk of death (in statistical terms, smoking is the exposure, and death is the outcome). You follow 5,000 people who smoke and 5,000 people who do not smoke for 10 years. At the end of the follow-up you find that about 40% of nonsmokers died, compared with only 10% of smokers. What do you conclude? At face value it would seem that smoking prevents death. However, before reaching this conclusion you might want to look at other factors. A look at the dataset shows that the average baseline age among nonsmokers was 60 years, whereas among smokers was 40 years. Could this be the cause of the results? You repeat the analysis based on strata of age (i.e., you compare smokers who were aged 60-70 years at baseline with nonsmokers who were aged 60-70 years, smokers who were aged 50-60 years with nonsmokers who were aged 50-60 years, and so on). What you find is that, for each category of age, the percentage of death among smokers was higher. Hence, you now reach the opposite conclusion, namely that smoking does increase the risk of death.
What happened? Why the different result? The answer is that, in this case, age was a confounder. What we initially thought was the effect of smoking was, in reality, at least in part, the effect of age. Overall, more deaths occurred among nonsmokers in the first analysis because they were older at baseline. When we compare people with similar age but who differ on smoking status, then the difference in mortality between them is not because of age (they have the same age) but smoking. Thus, in the second analysis we took age into account, or, in statistical terms, we adjusted for age, whereas the first analysis was, in statistical terms, an unadjusted or crude analysis. We should always be aware of studies with only crude results, because they might be biased/misleading.2
In the example above, age is not the only factor that might influence mortality. Alcohol or drug use, cancer or heart disease, body mass index, or physical activity can also influence death, independently of smoking. How to adjust for all these factors? We cannot do stratified analyses as we did above, because the strata would be too many. The solution is to do a multivariable regression analysis. This is a statistical tool to adjust for multiple factors (or variables) at the same time. When we adjust for all these factors, we are comparing the effect of smoking in people who are the same with regard to all these factors but who differ on smoking status. In statistical terms, we study the effect of smoking, keeping everything else constant. In this way we “isolate” the effect of smoking on death by taking into account all other factors, or, in statistical terms, we study the effect of smoking independently of other factors.
How many factors should be included in a multivariable analysis? As a general rule, the more the better, to reduce confounding. However, the number of variables to include in a regression model is limited by the sample size. The general rule of thumb is that, for every 10 events (for dichotomous outcomes) or 10 people (for continuous outcomes), we can add one variable in the model. If we add more variables than that, then in statistical terms the model becomes overfitted (i.e., it gives results that are specific to that dataset, but may not be applicable to other datasets). Overfitted models can be as biased/misleading as crude models.3
What are we to do about other factors that may affect mortality independently of smoking (e.g., diet), but which are not found in our dataset? Unfortunately, nothing. Since we do not have that information, we cannot adjust for it. In this case, diet is in statistical terms an unmeasured confounder. Unfortunately, in all observational studies there is always at least some degree of unmeasured confounding, because there may be many factors that can influence the outcome (and the exposure) which are not part of the dataset. While some statistical tools have been developed to estimate unmeasured confounding, and therefore interpret the results in its light, unmeasured confounding remains one of the major limitations of observational studies.4
Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on the other side do not have this problem in theory. With properly designed RCTs, all confounders, both measured and unmeasured, will be balanced between the two groups. For example, imagine an RCT where some patients are randomized to take drug A or drug B. Because patients are randomly allocated to one group or the other, it is assumed that all other factors are also randomly distributed. Hence, the two groups should be equal to each other with respect to all other factors except our active intervention, namely the type of drug they are taking (A or B). For this reason, in RCTs there is no need to adjust for multiple factors with a multivariable regression analysis, and crude unadjusted results can be presented as unbiased.
There is however a caveat. What happens if one patient who was randomized to take drug A takes drug B instead? Should she still be counted in analysis under drug A (as randomized) or under drug B (as she took it)? The usual practice is to do this and present both. In the first case, we will have the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, and in the second case, the per-protocol analysis (PPA). The advantage of the ITT is that it keeps the strength of randomization, namely the balancing of confounders, and therefore can present unbiased results. The advantage of the PPA is that it measures what was actually done in reality. However, in this case there is a departure from the original randomization, and hence there is the possibility of introducing confounding, because now patients are not randomly allocated to one treatment or the other. The larger the departure from randomization, the more probable the introduction of bias/confounding. For example, what if patients with more severe disease took drug A, even though they were randomized to take drug B? That will have an influence the outcome. For this reason, outcomes of the ITT analysis are considered the main results of RCTs, because PPA results can be confounded.
In summary, when reading studies, do not simply accept the results as they are presented, but rather ask yourself: “Could they be confounded by other factors, and therefore be unreliable? What steps did the authors take to reduce confounding? If they presented only crude analyses, and this was not justified by a RCT design, do they recognize it as a major limitation?” There are many nuances in every paper that can be appreciated only through a careful reading of the methods section. Hopefully, this article can shed some light on these issues and help the readers to not be confounded.
References
1. The P value: What to make of it? A simple guide for the uninitiated. GI and Hepatology News. 2019 Sep 23. https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/208601/mixed-topics/p-value-what-make-it-simple-guide-uninitiated
2. VanderWeele TJ et al. Ann Stat. 2013 Feb;41(1):196-220.
3. Concato J et al. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Feb 1;118(3):201-10.
4. VanderWeele TJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Aug 15;167(4):268-74.
Dr. Jovani is a therapeutic endoscopy fellow in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
In an earlier article, we looked at the meaning of the P value.1 This time we will look at another crucial statistical concept: that of confounding.
Confounding, as the name implies, is the recognition that crude associations may not reflect reality, but may instead be the result of outside factors. To illustrate, imagine that you want to study whether smoking increases the risk of death (in statistical terms, smoking is the exposure, and death is the outcome). You follow 5,000 people who smoke and 5,000 people who do not smoke for 10 years. At the end of the follow-up you find that about 40% of nonsmokers died, compared with only 10% of smokers. What do you conclude? At face value it would seem that smoking prevents death. However, before reaching this conclusion you might want to look at other factors. A look at the dataset shows that the average baseline age among nonsmokers was 60 years, whereas among smokers was 40 years. Could this be the cause of the results? You repeat the analysis based on strata of age (i.e., you compare smokers who were aged 60-70 years at baseline with nonsmokers who were aged 60-70 years, smokers who were aged 50-60 years with nonsmokers who were aged 50-60 years, and so on). What you find is that, for each category of age, the percentage of death among smokers was higher. Hence, you now reach the opposite conclusion, namely that smoking does increase the risk of death.
What happened? Why the different result? The answer is that, in this case, age was a confounder. What we initially thought was the effect of smoking was, in reality, at least in part, the effect of age. Overall, more deaths occurred among nonsmokers in the first analysis because they were older at baseline. When we compare people with similar age but who differ on smoking status, then the difference in mortality between them is not because of age (they have the same age) but smoking. Thus, in the second analysis we took age into account, or, in statistical terms, we adjusted for age, whereas the first analysis was, in statistical terms, an unadjusted or crude analysis. We should always be aware of studies with only crude results, because they might be biased/misleading.2
In the example above, age is not the only factor that might influence mortality. Alcohol or drug use, cancer or heart disease, body mass index, or physical activity can also influence death, independently of smoking. How to adjust for all these factors? We cannot do stratified analyses as we did above, because the strata would be too many. The solution is to do a multivariable regression analysis. This is a statistical tool to adjust for multiple factors (or variables) at the same time. When we adjust for all these factors, we are comparing the effect of smoking in people who are the same with regard to all these factors but who differ on smoking status. In statistical terms, we study the effect of smoking, keeping everything else constant. In this way we “isolate” the effect of smoking on death by taking into account all other factors, or, in statistical terms, we study the effect of smoking independently of other factors.
How many factors should be included in a multivariable analysis? As a general rule, the more the better, to reduce confounding. However, the number of variables to include in a regression model is limited by the sample size. The general rule of thumb is that, for every 10 events (for dichotomous outcomes) or 10 people (for continuous outcomes), we can add one variable in the model. If we add more variables than that, then in statistical terms the model becomes overfitted (i.e., it gives results that are specific to that dataset, but may not be applicable to other datasets). Overfitted models can be as biased/misleading as crude models.3
What are we to do about other factors that may affect mortality independently of smoking (e.g., diet), but which are not found in our dataset? Unfortunately, nothing. Since we do not have that information, we cannot adjust for it. In this case, diet is in statistical terms an unmeasured confounder. Unfortunately, in all observational studies there is always at least some degree of unmeasured confounding, because there may be many factors that can influence the outcome (and the exposure) which are not part of the dataset. While some statistical tools have been developed to estimate unmeasured confounding, and therefore interpret the results in its light, unmeasured confounding remains one of the major limitations of observational studies.4
Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on the other side do not have this problem in theory. With properly designed RCTs, all confounders, both measured and unmeasured, will be balanced between the two groups. For example, imagine an RCT where some patients are randomized to take drug A or drug B. Because patients are randomly allocated to one group or the other, it is assumed that all other factors are also randomly distributed. Hence, the two groups should be equal to each other with respect to all other factors except our active intervention, namely the type of drug they are taking (A or B). For this reason, in RCTs there is no need to adjust for multiple factors with a multivariable regression analysis, and crude unadjusted results can be presented as unbiased.
There is however a caveat. What happens if one patient who was randomized to take drug A takes drug B instead? Should she still be counted in analysis under drug A (as randomized) or under drug B (as she took it)? The usual practice is to do this and present both. In the first case, we will have the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, and in the second case, the per-protocol analysis (PPA). The advantage of the ITT is that it keeps the strength of randomization, namely the balancing of confounders, and therefore can present unbiased results. The advantage of the PPA is that it measures what was actually done in reality. However, in this case there is a departure from the original randomization, and hence there is the possibility of introducing confounding, because now patients are not randomly allocated to one treatment or the other. The larger the departure from randomization, the more probable the introduction of bias/confounding. For example, what if patients with more severe disease took drug A, even though they were randomized to take drug B? That will have an influence the outcome. For this reason, outcomes of the ITT analysis are considered the main results of RCTs, because PPA results can be confounded.
In summary, when reading studies, do not simply accept the results as they are presented, but rather ask yourself: “Could they be confounded by other factors, and therefore be unreliable? What steps did the authors take to reduce confounding? If they presented only crude analyses, and this was not justified by a RCT design, do they recognize it as a major limitation?” There are many nuances in every paper that can be appreciated only through a careful reading of the methods section. Hopefully, this article can shed some light on these issues and help the readers to not be confounded.
References
1. The P value: What to make of it? A simple guide for the uninitiated. GI and Hepatology News. 2019 Sep 23. https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/208601/mixed-topics/p-value-what-make-it-simple-guide-uninitiated
2. VanderWeele TJ et al. Ann Stat. 2013 Feb;41(1):196-220.
3. Concato J et al. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Feb 1;118(3):201-10.
4. VanderWeele TJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Aug 15;167(4):268-74.
Dr. Jovani is a therapeutic endoscopy fellow in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
All about puberty blockers!
While many transgender individuals develop their gender identity early on in life, medically there may not be any intervention until they hit puberty. For prepubertal children, providing a supportive environment and letting them explore gender expression with haircut, clothing, toys, name, and pronouns may be the main “interventions.” Ensure a safe bathroom and safe spaces at school (and home), and perhaps find an experienced therapist comfortable navigating gender concerns. Supporting the family supports the child and can make all the difference in the world. Often clinics specializing in gender care will see young children to provide this support and follow the child into puberty.
Once puberty starts, however, medical interventions can be discussed and puberty blockers are a great place to start, given their reversibility. Having an understanding of how puberty blockers work, the side effects, and timing of blocker use is important to the average pediatric provider as you may see some of these children and be able to intervene by sending them to a specialist early!
How do puberty blockers work?
One of the first hormonal signals of puberty is the pulsatile release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus. GnRH stimulates the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the anterior pituitary. LH and FSH then stimulate sex steroidogenesis (production of estradiol or testosterone) and gametogenesis in the gonads. The most common choice for puberty blockers are GnRH agonists, such as leuprolide (a series of shots) or histrelin (an implantable rod), which have been studied extensively for the treatment of children with central precocious puberty, and more recently gender dysphoria. Interestingly, these medicines actually stimulate gonadotropin release and the overproduction makes the gonadotropin receptors less sensitive.1 Gradually the production of sex steroids decreases. allowing one to proceed with natal puberty if one so desires. Gender specialists always start with the most reversible intervention, especially at such a young age. Puberty blockers are like a pause button that gives everyone – patient, clinicians, therapists – time to process, explore, and ensure transition is the right path.
Sexual development should stop on puberty blockers. For those born with ovaries, breasts will not continue to develop and menses will not start if premenarchal or stop soon if postmenarchal. For those born with testicles, testicular and penile enlargement will not proceed, the voice will not deepen, hands will not grow in size, and an “Adam’s apple” will not develop. Preventing these changes may not only prevent future surgeries (mastectomy, tracheal shaving, etc.) but may also be lifesaving given the lack of development as secondary sex characteristics may not develop, thus avoiding telltale signs that one has transitioned physically, particularly for transwomen.
What are the side effects of puberty blockers?
Whenever an adolescent is started on puberty blockers, it is important to discuss both the main effects (i.e., cessation of puberty and sexual development) as well as the side effects. There are four main side effect areas that are important to cover: bone health and height, brain development, fertility, and surgical implications.
- Bone health & height. Adolescence is an important time for growth. During adolescence, bones grow both in length, which determines an individual’s height, and in density, which can affect risk of osteoporosis later on in life. Sex steroids are an important factor for both of these issues. Estradiol is responsible for closure of the growth plates and, in general, those born with ovaries enter puberty earlier than those born with testicles, therefore they see higher rates of estradiol earlier, which causes cessation of growth, hence why females are typically shorter than males. Delaying these high levels of estrogen may give transmales (female to male individuals) more time to grow. Conversely, decreasing release of testosterone in transfemales (male to female individuals) and then introducing estradiol at higher levels earlier than they would experience with their natal puberty may stop transfemales from growing much taller than the average cisgender woman. Bone density also is a major concern as the sex steroids are very important for bone mass accretion.1,2 Studies in transgender individuals using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry show that, for transmale patients, z scores do decrease but they tend to catch up once gender-affirming hormones are started. For transfemale patients, the z scores don’t decrease as much but also don’t increase as much once estrogen is started.1,3 It is for these reasons that the Endocrine Society guidelines recommend monitoring bone density both before and while on puberty blockers.4,5
- Brain development. Adolescence also is an important time for brain development, particularly the areas that focus on executive function. Studies comparing transgender patients on GnRH agonists noted no detrimental effects on higher-order cognitive process associated with a specific task meant to test executive function.6 Although not performed on transgender individuals, a study examining girls with central precocious puberty on GnRH agonists found no difference with the control group on auditory and visual memory, response inhibition, spatial ability, behavioral problems, or social competence.7
- Fertility. Suspending puberty at an early Sexual Maturity Rating (such as stage 2 or 3) may make it difficult to harvest mature oocytes or spermatozoa, thus compromising long-term fertility, especially once they start on gender-affirming hormones. While some patients may choose to delay starting puberty blockers for the sake of cryopreservation, others may be in too much distress at their pubertal changes to wait. Fertility counseling is thus an important aspect of the discussion with transgender patients considering puberty blockers and/or gender-affirming hormones.
- Surgical implications. The most common “bottom surgery” performed in transfemales is called penile inversion vaginoplasty, which uses the penile and scrotal skin to create a neovagina.8 However, one has to have enough penile and scrotal development for this surgery to be successful, which may mean waiting until a patient has reached Sexual Maturity Rating stage 4 before starting blockers. There are alternative surgical options, but one must discuss the risks and benefits of waiting to start blockers with the patient and family.
When can puberty blockers be started?
Patients must meet criteria for gender dysphoria with emergence or worsening with puberty.9 Any coexisting conditions (psychological, medical, social) that could interfere with treatment have to be addressed, and both the patient and their guardian must undergo informed consent for treatment.4,5,10 Puberty blockers cannot be used until after puberty has started, so at least Sexual Maturity Rating stage 2. In the early stages of puberty, hormonally one will see LH rise followed by rise in estradiol and/or testosterone. Consideration for both the development of secondary sex characteristics and associated increased distress or dysphoria as well as surgical implications must be weighed in each individual case. The bottom line is that these medications can be life saving and are reversible, so if a patient and/or family decides to stop them, the effects will wear off and natal puberty will resume.
Dr. Lawlis is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30099-2.
2. Bone. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.10.005.
3. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.
4. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-0345.
5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658.
6. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2015 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007.
7. Front Psychol. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01053.
8. Sex Med Rev. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.08.001.
9. “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” 5th ed. (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
10. Int J Transgend. 2012. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873.
While many transgender individuals develop their gender identity early on in life, medically there may not be any intervention until they hit puberty. For prepubertal children, providing a supportive environment and letting them explore gender expression with haircut, clothing, toys, name, and pronouns may be the main “interventions.” Ensure a safe bathroom and safe spaces at school (and home), and perhaps find an experienced therapist comfortable navigating gender concerns. Supporting the family supports the child and can make all the difference in the world. Often clinics specializing in gender care will see young children to provide this support and follow the child into puberty.
Once puberty starts, however, medical interventions can be discussed and puberty blockers are a great place to start, given their reversibility. Having an understanding of how puberty blockers work, the side effects, and timing of blocker use is important to the average pediatric provider as you may see some of these children and be able to intervene by sending them to a specialist early!
How do puberty blockers work?
One of the first hormonal signals of puberty is the pulsatile release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus. GnRH stimulates the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the anterior pituitary. LH and FSH then stimulate sex steroidogenesis (production of estradiol or testosterone) and gametogenesis in the gonads. The most common choice for puberty blockers are GnRH agonists, such as leuprolide (a series of shots) or histrelin (an implantable rod), which have been studied extensively for the treatment of children with central precocious puberty, and more recently gender dysphoria. Interestingly, these medicines actually stimulate gonadotropin release and the overproduction makes the gonadotropin receptors less sensitive.1 Gradually the production of sex steroids decreases. allowing one to proceed with natal puberty if one so desires. Gender specialists always start with the most reversible intervention, especially at such a young age. Puberty blockers are like a pause button that gives everyone – patient, clinicians, therapists – time to process, explore, and ensure transition is the right path.
Sexual development should stop on puberty blockers. For those born with ovaries, breasts will not continue to develop and menses will not start if premenarchal or stop soon if postmenarchal. For those born with testicles, testicular and penile enlargement will not proceed, the voice will not deepen, hands will not grow in size, and an “Adam’s apple” will not develop. Preventing these changes may not only prevent future surgeries (mastectomy, tracheal shaving, etc.) but may also be lifesaving given the lack of development as secondary sex characteristics may not develop, thus avoiding telltale signs that one has transitioned physically, particularly for transwomen.
What are the side effects of puberty blockers?
Whenever an adolescent is started on puberty blockers, it is important to discuss both the main effects (i.e., cessation of puberty and sexual development) as well as the side effects. There are four main side effect areas that are important to cover: bone health and height, brain development, fertility, and surgical implications.
- Bone health & height. Adolescence is an important time for growth. During adolescence, bones grow both in length, which determines an individual’s height, and in density, which can affect risk of osteoporosis later on in life. Sex steroids are an important factor for both of these issues. Estradiol is responsible for closure of the growth plates and, in general, those born with ovaries enter puberty earlier than those born with testicles, therefore they see higher rates of estradiol earlier, which causes cessation of growth, hence why females are typically shorter than males. Delaying these high levels of estrogen may give transmales (female to male individuals) more time to grow. Conversely, decreasing release of testosterone in transfemales (male to female individuals) and then introducing estradiol at higher levels earlier than they would experience with their natal puberty may stop transfemales from growing much taller than the average cisgender woman. Bone density also is a major concern as the sex steroids are very important for bone mass accretion.1,2 Studies in transgender individuals using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry show that, for transmale patients, z scores do decrease but they tend to catch up once gender-affirming hormones are started. For transfemale patients, the z scores don’t decrease as much but also don’t increase as much once estrogen is started.1,3 It is for these reasons that the Endocrine Society guidelines recommend monitoring bone density both before and while on puberty blockers.4,5
- Brain development. Adolescence also is an important time for brain development, particularly the areas that focus on executive function. Studies comparing transgender patients on GnRH agonists noted no detrimental effects on higher-order cognitive process associated with a specific task meant to test executive function.6 Although not performed on transgender individuals, a study examining girls with central precocious puberty on GnRH agonists found no difference with the control group on auditory and visual memory, response inhibition, spatial ability, behavioral problems, or social competence.7
- Fertility. Suspending puberty at an early Sexual Maturity Rating (such as stage 2 or 3) may make it difficult to harvest mature oocytes or spermatozoa, thus compromising long-term fertility, especially once they start on gender-affirming hormones. While some patients may choose to delay starting puberty blockers for the sake of cryopreservation, others may be in too much distress at their pubertal changes to wait. Fertility counseling is thus an important aspect of the discussion with transgender patients considering puberty blockers and/or gender-affirming hormones.
- Surgical implications. The most common “bottom surgery” performed in transfemales is called penile inversion vaginoplasty, which uses the penile and scrotal skin to create a neovagina.8 However, one has to have enough penile and scrotal development for this surgery to be successful, which may mean waiting until a patient has reached Sexual Maturity Rating stage 4 before starting blockers. There are alternative surgical options, but one must discuss the risks and benefits of waiting to start blockers with the patient and family.
When can puberty blockers be started?
Patients must meet criteria for gender dysphoria with emergence or worsening with puberty.9 Any coexisting conditions (psychological, medical, social) that could interfere with treatment have to be addressed, and both the patient and their guardian must undergo informed consent for treatment.4,5,10 Puberty blockers cannot be used until after puberty has started, so at least Sexual Maturity Rating stage 2. In the early stages of puberty, hormonally one will see LH rise followed by rise in estradiol and/or testosterone. Consideration for both the development of secondary sex characteristics and associated increased distress or dysphoria as well as surgical implications must be weighed in each individual case. The bottom line is that these medications can be life saving and are reversible, so if a patient and/or family decides to stop them, the effects will wear off and natal puberty will resume.
Dr. Lawlis is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30099-2.
2. Bone. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.10.005.
3. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.
4. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-0345.
5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658.
6. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2015 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007.
7. Front Psychol. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01053.
8. Sex Med Rev. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.08.001.
9. “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” 5th ed. (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
10. Int J Transgend. 2012. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873.
While many transgender individuals develop their gender identity early on in life, medically there may not be any intervention until they hit puberty. For prepubertal children, providing a supportive environment and letting them explore gender expression with haircut, clothing, toys, name, and pronouns may be the main “interventions.” Ensure a safe bathroom and safe spaces at school (and home), and perhaps find an experienced therapist comfortable navigating gender concerns. Supporting the family supports the child and can make all the difference in the world. Often clinics specializing in gender care will see young children to provide this support and follow the child into puberty.
Once puberty starts, however, medical interventions can be discussed and puberty blockers are a great place to start, given their reversibility. Having an understanding of how puberty blockers work, the side effects, and timing of blocker use is important to the average pediatric provider as you may see some of these children and be able to intervene by sending them to a specialist early!
How do puberty blockers work?
One of the first hormonal signals of puberty is the pulsatile release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus. GnRH stimulates the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the anterior pituitary. LH and FSH then stimulate sex steroidogenesis (production of estradiol or testosterone) and gametogenesis in the gonads. The most common choice for puberty blockers are GnRH agonists, such as leuprolide (a series of shots) or histrelin (an implantable rod), which have been studied extensively for the treatment of children with central precocious puberty, and more recently gender dysphoria. Interestingly, these medicines actually stimulate gonadotropin release and the overproduction makes the gonadotropin receptors less sensitive.1 Gradually the production of sex steroids decreases. allowing one to proceed with natal puberty if one so desires. Gender specialists always start with the most reversible intervention, especially at such a young age. Puberty blockers are like a pause button that gives everyone – patient, clinicians, therapists – time to process, explore, and ensure transition is the right path.
Sexual development should stop on puberty blockers. For those born with ovaries, breasts will not continue to develop and menses will not start if premenarchal or stop soon if postmenarchal. For those born with testicles, testicular and penile enlargement will not proceed, the voice will not deepen, hands will not grow in size, and an “Adam’s apple” will not develop. Preventing these changes may not only prevent future surgeries (mastectomy, tracheal shaving, etc.) but may also be lifesaving given the lack of development as secondary sex characteristics may not develop, thus avoiding telltale signs that one has transitioned physically, particularly for transwomen.
What are the side effects of puberty blockers?
Whenever an adolescent is started on puberty blockers, it is important to discuss both the main effects (i.e., cessation of puberty and sexual development) as well as the side effects. There are four main side effect areas that are important to cover: bone health and height, brain development, fertility, and surgical implications.
- Bone health & height. Adolescence is an important time for growth. During adolescence, bones grow both in length, which determines an individual’s height, and in density, which can affect risk of osteoporosis later on in life. Sex steroids are an important factor for both of these issues. Estradiol is responsible for closure of the growth plates and, in general, those born with ovaries enter puberty earlier than those born with testicles, therefore they see higher rates of estradiol earlier, which causes cessation of growth, hence why females are typically shorter than males. Delaying these high levels of estrogen may give transmales (female to male individuals) more time to grow. Conversely, decreasing release of testosterone in transfemales (male to female individuals) and then introducing estradiol at higher levels earlier than they would experience with their natal puberty may stop transfemales from growing much taller than the average cisgender woman. Bone density also is a major concern as the sex steroids are very important for bone mass accretion.1,2 Studies in transgender individuals using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry show that, for transmale patients, z scores do decrease but they tend to catch up once gender-affirming hormones are started. For transfemale patients, the z scores don’t decrease as much but also don’t increase as much once estrogen is started.1,3 It is for these reasons that the Endocrine Society guidelines recommend monitoring bone density both before and while on puberty blockers.4,5
- Brain development. Adolescence also is an important time for brain development, particularly the areas that focus on executive function. Studies comparing transgender patients on GnRH agonists noted no detrimental effects on higher-order cognitive process associated with a specific task meant to test executive function.6 Although not performed on transgender individuals, a study examining girls with central precocious puberty on GnRH agonists found no difference with the control group on auditory and visual memory, response inhibition, spatial ability, behavioral problems, or social competence.7
- Fertility. Suspending puberty at an early Sexual Maturity Rating (such as stage 2 or 3) may make it difficult to harvest mature oocytes or spermatozoa, thus compromising long-term fertility, especially once they start on gender-affirming hormones. While some patients may choose to delay starting puberty blockers for the sake of cryopreservation, others may be in too much distress at their pubertal changes to wait. Fertility counseling is thus an important aspect of the discussion with transgender patients considering puberty blockers and/or gender-affirming hormones.
- Surgical implications. The most common “bottom surgery” performed in transfemales is called penile inversion vaginoplasty, which uses the penile and scrotal skin to create a neovagina.8 However, one has to have enough penile and scrotal development for this surgery to be successful, which may mean waiting until a patient has reached Sexual Maturity Rating stage 4 before starting blockers. There are alternative surgical options, but one must discuss the risks and benefits of waiting to start blockers with the patient and family.
When can puberty blockers be started?
Patients must meet criteria for gender dysphoria with emergence or worsening with puberty.9 Any coexisting conditions (psychological, medical, social) that could interfere with treatment have to be addressed, and both the patient and their guardian must undergo informed consent for treatment.4,5,10 Puberty blockers cannot be used until after puberty has started, so at least Sexual Maturity Rating stage 2. In the early stages of puberty, hormonally one will see LH rise followed by rise in estradiol and/or testosterone. Consideration for both the development of secondary sex characteristics and associated increased distress or dysphoria as well as surgical implications must be weighed in each individual case. The bottom line is that these medications can be life saving and are reversible, so if a patient and/or family decides to stop them, the effects will wear off and natal puberty will resume.
Dr. Lawlis is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Oct. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30099-2.
2. Bone. 2010 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.10.005.
3. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Feb. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.
4. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Sep. doi: 10.1210/jc.2009-0345.
5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658.
6. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2015 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007.
7. Front Psychol. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01053.
8. Sex Med Rev. 2017 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.08.001.
9. “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” 5th ed. (Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
10. Int J Transgend. 2012. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873.
A teen girl presents with a pinkish-red bump on her right leg
This atypical lesion might warrant a biopsy. However, upon closer examination, you can appreciate a small papule with a whitish center, at the inferior margin of the tumor (6 o’clock), and another flat-topped papule with a white center several centimeters inferior-lateral to the lesion, both consistent with molluscum lesions. Therefore, the tumor is consistent with a giant molluscum contagiosum.
Molluscum contagiosum is a cutaneous viral infection caused by the poxvirus, which commonly affects children. It can spread easily by direct physical contact, fomites, and autoinoculation.1 It usually presents with skin-colored or pink pearly dome-shaped papules with central umbilication that can occur anywhere on the face or body. The skin lesions can be asymptomatic or pruritic. When the size of the molluscum is 0.5 cm or more in diameter, it is considered a giant molluscum. Atypical size and appearance may be seen in patients with altered or impaired immunity such as those with HIV.2,3 Giant molluscum has been reported in immunocompetent patients as well.4,5
The diagnosis of molluscum contagiosum usually is made clinically. Our patient had typically appearing molluscum lesions approximate to the larger lesion of concern. She was overall healthy without any history of impaired immunity so no further work-up was pursued. However, a biopsy of the skin lesion may be considered if the diagnosis is unclear.
What’s the treatment plan?
Treatment may not be necessary for molluscum contagiosum because it is often self-limited in immunocompetent children, although it can take many months to years to resolve. Treatment may be considered to reduce autoinoculation or risk of transmission because of close contact to others, to alleviate discomfort, including itching, to reduce cosmetic concerns and to prevent secondary infection.6
The most common treatments for molluscum contagiosum are cantharidin or cryotherapy. Other treatment available include topical retinoids, immunomodulators such as cimetidine, or antivirals such as cidofovir.1 Lesions with or without treatment may exhibit the BOTE (beginning of the end) sign, which is an apparent worsening associated with the body’s immune response to the molluscum virus and generally indicates imminent resolution.
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for giant molluscum contagiosum includes epidermal inclusion cyst, skin tag, pilomatrixoma, and amelanotic melanoma.
Epidermal inclusion cyst typically presents as a firm, mobile nodule under the skin with central punctum, which can enlarge and become inflamed. It can be painful, especially when infected. Definitive treatment is surgical excision because it rarely resolves spontaneously.
Skin tags, also known as acrochordons, are benign skin-colored papules most often found in the skin folds. People with obesity and type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for skin tags. Skin tags may be treated with cryotherapy, surgical excision, or ligation.
Pilomatrixoma is a benign skin tumor derived from hair matrix cells. It is usually a nontender, firm, skin-colored or red-purple subcutaneous nodule that may have calcifications. Treatment is surgical excision.
Amelanotic melanoma is a melanoma with little or no pigment and can present as a skin- or red-colored nodule. While these are quite uncommon, recognition that many pediatric melanomas present as amelanotic lesions makes it important to consider this in the differential diagnosis of growing papules and nodules.7 Treatment and prognosis is similar to that of pigmented melanoma, but as it is often clinically challenging to diagnose because of atypical features, it may be detected in more advanced stages.
Our patient underwent cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen to the nodule given the large size of the lesion, with resolution without recurrence.
Dr. Lee is a pediatric dermatology research fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Lee nor Dr. Eichenfield had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2017. doi: 10.2174/1872213X11666170518114456.
2. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jegh.2013.06.002.
3. Trop Doct. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1177/0049475514568133.
4. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013 Jun;63(6):778-9.
5. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.5826/dpc.0603a15.
6 Molluscum Contagiosum, in “Red Book: 2018 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” 31st ed. (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2018, pp. 565-66).
7. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.12.953.
This atypical lesion might warrant a biopsy. However, upon closer examination, you can appreciate a small papule with a whitish center, at the inferior margin of the tumor (6 o’clock), and another flat-topped papule with a white center several centimeters inferior-lateral to the lesion, both consistent with molluscum lesions. Therefore, the tumor is consistent with a giant molluscum contagiosum.
Molluscum contagiosum is a cutaneous viral infection caused by the poxvirus, which commonly affects children. It can spread easily by direct physical contact, fomites, and autoinoculation.1 It usually presents with skin-colored or pink pearly dome-shaped papules with central umbilication that can occur anywhere on the face or body. The skin lesions can be asymptomatic or pruritic. When the size of the molluscum is 0.5 cm or more in diameter, it is considered a giant molluscum. Atypical size and appearance may be seen in patients with altered or impaired immunity such as those with HIV.2,3 Giant molluscum has been reported in immunocompetent patients as well.4,5
The diagnosis of molluscum contagiosum usually is made clinically. Our patient had typically appearing molluscum lesions approximate to the larger lesion of concern. She was overall healthy without any history of impaired immunity so no further work-up was pursued. However, a biopsy of the skin lesion may be considered if the diagnosis is unclear.
What’s the treatment plan?
Treatment may not be necessary for molluscum contagiosum because it is often self-limited in immunocompetent children, although it can take many months to years to resolve. Treatment may be considered to reduce autoinoculation or risk of transmission because of close contact to others, to alleviate discomfort, including itching, to reduce cosmetic concerns and to prevent secondary infection.6
The most common treatments for molluscum contagiosum are cantharidin or cryotherapy. Other treatment available include topical retinoids, immunomodulators such as cimetidine, or antivirals such as cidofovir.1 Lesions with or without treatment may exhibit the BOTE (beginning of the end) sign, which is an apparent worsening associated with the body’s immune response to the molluscum virus and generally indicates imminent resolution.
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for giant molluscum contagiosum includes epidermal inclusion cyst, skin tag, pilomatrixoma, and amelanotic melanoma.
Epidermal inclusion cyst typically presents as a firm, mobile nodule under the skin with central punctum, which can enlarge and become inflamed. It can be painful, especially when infected. Definitive treatment is surgical excision because it rarely resolves spontaneously.
Skin tags, also known as acrochordons, are benign skin-colored papules most often found in the skin folds. People with obesity and type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for skin tags. Skin tags may be treated with cryotherapy, surgical excision, or ligation.
Pilomatrixoma is a benign skin tumor derived from hair matrix cells. It is usually a nontender, firm, skin-colored or red-purple subcutaneous nodule that may have calcifications. Treatment is surgical excision.
Amelanotic melanoma is a melanoma with little or no pigment and can present as a skin- or red-colored nodule. While these are quite uncommon, recognition that many pediatric melanomas present as amelanotic lesions makes it important to consider this in the differential diagnosis of growing papules and nodules.7 Treatment and prognosis is similar to that of pigmented melanoma, but as it is often clinically challenging to diagnose because of atypical features, it may be detected in more advanced stages.
Our patient underwent cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen to the nodule given the large size of the lesion, with resolution without recurrence.
Dr. Lee is a pediatric dermatology research fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Lee nor Dr. Eichenfield had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2017. doi: 10.2174/1872213X11666170518114456.
2. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jegh.2013.06.002.
3. Trop Doct. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1177/0049475514568133.
4. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013 Jun;63(6):778-9.
5. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.5826/dpc.0603a15.
6 Molluscum Contagiosum, in “Red Book: 2018 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” 31st ed. (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2018, pp. 565-66).
7. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.12.953.
This atypical lesion might warrant a biopsy. However, upon closer examination, you can appreciate a small papule with a whitish center, at the inferior margin of the tumor (6 o’clock), and another flat-topped papule with a white center several centimeters inferior-lateral to the lesion, both consistent with molluscum lesions. Therefore, the tumor is consistent with a giant molluscum contagiosum.
Molluscum contagiosum is a cutaneous viral infection caused by the poxvirus, which commonly affects children. It can spread easily by direct physical contact, fomites, and autoinoculation.1 It usually presents with skin-colored or pink pearly dome-shaped papules with central umbilication that can occur anywhere on the face or body. The skin lesions can be asymptomatic or pruritic. When the size of the molluscum is 0.5 cm or more in diameter, it is considered a giant molluscum. Atypical size and appearance may be seen in patients with altered or impaired immunity such as those with HIV.2,3 Giant molluscum has been reported in immunocompetent patients as well.4,5
The diagnosis of molluscum contagiosum usually is made clinically. Our patient had typically appearing molluscum lesions approximate to the larger lesion of concern. She was overall healthy without any history of impaired immunity so no further work-up was pursued. However, a biopsy of the skin lesion may be considered if the diagnosis is unclear.
What’s the treatment plan?
Treatment may not be necessary for molluscum contagiosum because it is often self-limited in immunocompetent children, although it can take many months to years to resolve. Treatment may be considered to reduce autoinoculation or risk of transmission because of close contact to others, to alleviate discomfort, including itching, to reduce cosmetic concerns and to prevent secondary infection.6
The most common treatments for molluscum contagiosum are cantharidin or cryotherapy. Other treatment available include topical retinoids, immunomodulators such as cimetidine, or antivirals such as cidofovir.1 Lesions with or without treatment may exhibit the BOTE (beginning of the end) sign, which is an apparent worsening associated with the body’s immune response to the molluscum virus and generally indicates imminent resolution.
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for giant molluscum contagiosum includes epidermal inclusion cyst, skin tag, pilomatrixoma, and amelanotic melanoma.
Epidermal inclusion cyst typically presents as a firm, mobile nodule under the skin with central punctum, which can enlarge and become inflamed. It can be painful, especially when infected. Definitive treatment is surgical excision because it rarely resolves spontaneously.
Skin tags, also known as acrochordons, are benign skin-colored papules most often found in the skin folds. People with obesity and type 2 diabetes are at higher risk for skin tags. Skin tags may be treated with cryotherapy, surgical excision, or ligation.
Pilomatrixoma is a benign skin tumor derived from hair matrix cells. It is usually a nontender, firm, skin-colored or red-purple subcutaneous nodule that may have calcifications. Treatment is surgical excision.
Amelanotic melanoma is a melanoma with little or no pigment and can present as a skin- or red-colored nodule. While these are quite uncommon, recognition that many pediatric melanomas present as amelanotic lesions makes it important to consider this in the differential diagnosis of growing papules and nodules.7 Treatment and prognosis is similar to that of pigmented melanoma, but as it is often clinically challenging to diagnose because of atypical features, it may be detected in more advanced stages.
Our patient underwent cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen to the nodule given the large size of the lesion, with resolution without recurrence.
Dr. Lee is a pediatric dermatology research fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither Dr. Lee nor Dr. Eichenfield had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2017. doi: 10.2174/1872213X11666170518114456.
2. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jegh.2013.06.002.
3. Trop Doct. 2015 Apr. doi: 10.1177/0049475514568133.
4. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013 Jun;63(6):778-9.
5. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2016 Jul. doi: 10.5826/dpc.0603a15.
6 Molluscum Contagiosum, in “Red Book: 2018 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” 31st ed. (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2018, pp. 565-66).
7. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.12.953.
Improving interprovider communication
“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.
I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.
The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.
The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.
Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.
Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.
This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.
Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.
I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.
The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.
The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.
Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.
Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.
This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.
Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
“Interprovider communication” is a big buzzphrase in medicine these days. Granted, it’s an important aspect of patient care. But, like many words and phrases, a lot of substance is lost in the spin of things.
I get emails, faxes, and letters all the time promising a new system that improves communication between physicians and patients. The hospital I share call at always seems to have something in its physician newsletters about a new software or app to improve communication.
The problem here isn’t that there aren’t already good ways for physicians to communicate – there are. I generally rely on the old standbys of a fax machine, with the post office as a backup for most things, and the phone for more urgent matters.
The real issue is people who don’t use the systems available, and no amount of technology will change that.
Some doctors feel they’re too busy to get a letter out, or forward tests results to another physician, or even have their office staff do it. Others just barely glance at anything that comes through, then pass it on to their staff to file it in a chart. At the hospital some doctors don’t seem to bother to read their consultants’ notes.
Granted, this isn’t entirely the doctors’ faults. As I’ve written before, many of the EMR chart systems are so full of templates and cut and paste that notes are rendered virtually meaningless. To find the impression – if it’s even in there – may need some digging. This takes time, which is always in short supply in a medical practice. The days when you could just flip through to the paragraph labeled “impression” are gone, and probably aren’t coming back. Which is good for no one on either side of the desk or bedrail.
This is sad, because that’s where the vast majority of physician communication happened. Letting people know what you’re thinking and doing, and at the same time asking specific questions you’re hoping they’ll address.
Not all doctors are poor at communication – the vast majority are not. But for those of us trying to care for a patient with one who is, there isn’t a software breakthrough now – or ever – that will make it any easier, no matter how much time, money, and glossy marketing is thrown at it.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.