Opinion

Editor’s note: This is the second in a series of articles by Dr. Miller about challenges in outpatient psychiatry.

Mr. A lived a life that seemed glamorous to me. There were lunches with professional athletes, swank social events, and designer everything from clothes to cars. It was a world that I was not familiar with, and while I knew my patient worried about money, it seemed he had it. When he started therapy with me, Mr. A came to every session with a check. At some point, I realized that I had missed a switch in his mood. Despite his therapeutic level of lithium, Mr. A had become manic, and the expression of this mania took the form of even more spending. What started as an exciting lifestyle suddenly became tens of thousands of dollars of debt. I felt guilty that I initially did not see this as pathology, and as a young psychiatrist, I sought consultation with an older and wiser mentor.

After discussing the case, the consulting psychiatrist said to me, “Make sure you get paid; these cases are difficult.” In fact, in the midst of the chaos, Mr. A had stopped bringing a check to the sessions. I sent monthly statements, and they went unpaid. He didn’t have the money for his living expenses and I let this go on without addressing it for much too long. Soon, Mr. A’s debt to me was just one more stress in his life and while I knew I would not pursue reimbursement through legal channels, I did encourage him to find a psychiatrist who was in his insurance network, something he did not want to do. I was too embarrassed to tell the consulting psychiatrist that Mr. A had already accrued well over a thousand dollars in unpaid professional fees. In my mind, I was offering pro bono care because the patient’s financial circumstances had changed, and because I felt guilty that I had not recognized this as mania sooner.

In a 2011 Shrink Rap blog post, Jesse Hellman, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Towson, Md., wrote about the meaning of payment in psychotherapy:

“Money is something loaded with meaning to most people. What does it mean that the patient forgets to pay? Does it mean ‘if you really cared about me you would not charge me’? Is it a reflection of anger for something that occurred in the last session? Is it a displacement of feelings from something else (‘my boss didn’t give me the raise I expected’)? Is it completely inadvertent (Freud famously said ‘Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar’)?”

There are so many possibilities, and the psychodynamic therapist wants to understand them. How the patient relates to the therapist is some part of how he relates to others. The patient hopefully starts to watch his own actions and attitudes and also tries to understand them. A nonjudgmental stance helps the patient do this.

The therapist himself needs to be comfortable dealing with the subject of money. Sometimes beginning physicians fluctuate between feeling they are too inexperienced to be paid and feeling that they deserve anything they ask. We physicians might even (unfortunately) take on the attitudes of the insurance companies themselves (“Identification with the Aggressor”).

The blog post was flooded with comments –120 in total, and more comments than any other single Shrink Rap post received for the blog’s 12-year run.

Steven Reidbord, MD, is a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and also a blogger. Dr. Reidbord conversed with me through email about patients who don’t pay.

“In years past, I’ve had a few patients who met with me a few times, always ‘forgetting’ their payment and offering it ‘next time,’ until after three or four sessions, I refused to see them. I always wondered what such patients were thinking, as obviously this arrangement wouldn’t last long. Did they tell themselves they’d pay me at some point, in effect fooling themselves? Was it conscious theft of my services? A couple years ago, I started accepting charge cards, and perhaps as a result, this hasn’t happened. While it’s always useful to consider individual dynamics in explaining such behavior, it’s also important to consider normative psychology: Make it easier to pay, and more people will.”

While payment for out-of-network services is often clear cut – the patients pay and then requests reimbursement from their insurer – the logistics often are confusing for the patient. He or she may believe that she has excellent coverage, only to learn that the out-of-network deductible is very high, or that reimbursement is based on “usual and customary fees” that are much lower than his psychiatrist’s fees. Sometimes people take on the cost of psychiatric care and discover that it costs more than they assumed, or they have a change in their financial circumstances, as my patient did. Sometimes a parent is paying for treatment and decides he can no longer afford it.

“When someone’s financial circumstances change, they often let me know by proposing we meet less often, for example, every other week,” Dr. Reidbord wrote. “I ask to hear more and often offer to adjust my fee to allow weekly meetings to continue.”

Not all patients pay for psychiatric services, and that may make the discussion even harder. When psychiatrists participate with insurance, the patients are responsible for paying only their deductible and then a copay. The patients may unexpectedly be billed for the entire fee if their insurance terminates, or if it does not pay for a submitted claim. And patients who carry public insurance may be seen at sites where there is no out-of-pocket cost to the patient; salaried clinicians often never know if the insurance has paid. In both of these settings, finances are usually discussed with administrative personnel and not with clinical staff.

Anthony Massey, MD, is founder of Maryland’s Gladstone Psychiatry and Wellness. The group is a multidisciplinary organization, and the clinicians participate with employer-based commercial health insurances. The group accepts payment directly from the insurer, and the patient is responsible for payment of the deductible and a copay.

“We try to understand what someone owes before the first appointment. We do an eligibility check online, and we ask for payment at the time of the appointment,” Massey explained. “Sometimes the insurance changes and we don’t know, or sometimes a patient comes to the appointment without the copay. We try to work with people, but if someone builds up a balance over $500, we tell them they can’t be seen here until it’s paid down. We’ll give patients a 30-day prescription and the names of other psychiatrists who accept insurance, but we don’t keep seeing people who don’t pay for their treatment.”

In all medical settings, unpaid bills present a problem, and while most psychiatrists have a method to deal with these issues, there is no perfect answer for every doctor in every situation. There is this tension between wanting to be kind and understanding of the hardships that people have whether those hardships result from life circumstances or from their own choices and behaviors, and of our own need to make the living we feel we deserve and to pay our own bills.

“The only advice I’d give other psychiatrists is to catch it early,” Reidbord said. “Have a policy that feels fair – payment before each session, payment just after each session, payment soon after receiving a monthly itemized statement, whatever seems right to you – and stick with it. If a patient doesn’t pay according to your clearly stated policy, explore it right away. Remember that pragmatic issues like poor budgeting or unexpected expenses are just as likely as intrapsychic conflict and ‘acting out.’ Both should be considered.”

I wish I could say that in the decades since I treated Mr. A that no patients have ever failed to pay their professional fees and that I have perfectly mastered my own issues with money as it pertains to professional fees. While the vast majority of patients do pay, there are still occasional circumstances in which someone’s financial circumstances change, or very rarely where someone ends his treatment without paying for the last few sessions.
 

Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice in Baltimore. Patient details were altered to preserve confidentiality.

 

Editor’s note: This is the second in a series of articles by Dr. Miller about challenges in outpatient psychiatry.

Mr. A lived a life that seemed glamorous to me. There were lunches with professional athletes, swank social events, and designer everything from clothes to cars. It was a world that I was not familiar with, and while I knew my patient worried about money, it seemed he had it. When he started therapy with me, Mr. A came to every session with a check. At some point, I realized that I had missed a switch in his mood. Despite his therapeutic level of lithium, Mr. A had become manic, and the expression of this mania took the form of even more spending. What started as an exciting lifestyle suddenly became tens of thousands of dollars of debt. I felt guilty that I initially did not see this as pathology, and as a young psychiatrist, I sought consultation with an older and wiser mentor.

After discussing the case, the consulting psychiatrist said to me, “Make sure you get paid; these cases are difficult.” In fact, in the midst of the chaos, Mr. A had stopped bringing a check to the sessions. I sent monthly statements, and they went unpaid. He didn’t have the money for his living expenses and I let this go on without addressing it for much too long. Soon, Mr. A’s debt to me was just one more stress in his life and while I knew I would not pursue reimbursement through legal channels, I did encourage him to find a psychiatrist who was in his insurance network, something he did not want to do. I was too embarrassed to tell the consulting psychiatrist that Mr. A had already accrued well over a thousand dollars in unpaid professional fees. In my mind, I was offering pro bono care because the patient’s financial circumstances had changed, and because I felt guilty that I had not recognized this as mania sooner.

In a 2011 Shrink Rap blog post, Jesse Hellman, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Towson, Md., wrote about the meaning of payment in psychotherapy:

“Money is something loaded with meaning to most people. What does it mean that the patient forgets to pay? Does it mean ‘if you really cared about me you would not charge me’? Is it a reflection of anger for something that occurred in the last session? Is it a displacement of feelings from something else (‘my boss didn’t give me the raise I expected’)? Is it completely inadvertent (Freud famously said ‘Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar’)?”

There are so many possibilities, and the psychodynamic therapist wants to understand them. How the patient relates to the therapist is some part of how he relates to others. The patient hopefully starts to watch his own actions and attitudes and also tries to understand them. A nonjudgmental stance helps the patient do this.

The therapist himself needs to be comfortable dealing with the subject of money. Sometimes beginning physicians fluctuate between feeling they are too inexperienced to be paid and feeling that they deserve anything they ask. We physicians might even (unfortunately) take on the attitudes of the insurance companies themselves (“Identification with the Aggressor”).

The blog post was flooded with comments –120 in total, and more comments than any other single Shrink Rap post received for the blog’s 12-year run.

Steven Reidbord, MD, is a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and also a blogger. Dr. Reidbord conversed with me through email about patients who don’t pay.

“In years past, I’ve had a few patients who met with me a few times, always ‘forgetting’ their payment and offering it ‘next time,’ until after three or four sessions, I refused to see them. I always wondered what such patients were thinking, as obviously this arrangement wouldn’t last long. Did they tell themselves they’d pay me at some point, in effect fooling themselves? Was it conscious theft of my services? A couple years ago, I started accepting charge cards, and perhaps as a result, this hasn’t happened. While it’s always useful to consider individual dynamics in explaining such behavior, it’s also important to consider normative psychology: Make it easier to pay, and more people will.”

While payment for out-of-network services is often clear cut – the patients pay and then requests reimbursement from their insurer – the logistics often are confusing for the patient. He or she may believe that she has excellent coverage, only to learn that the out-of-network deductible is very high, or that reimbursement is based on “usual and customary fees” that are much lower than his psychiatrist’s fees. Sometimes people take on the cost of psychiatric care and discover that it costs more than they assumed, or they have a change in their financial circumstances, as my patient did. Sometimes a parent is paying for treatment and decides he can no longer afford it.

“When someone’s financial circumstances change, they often let me know by proposing we meet less often, for example, every other week,” Dr. Reidbord wrote. “I ask to hear more and often offer to adjust my fee to allow weekly meetings to continue.”

Not all patients pay for psychiatric services, and that may make the discussion even harder. When psychiatrists participate with insurance, the patients are responsible for paying only their deductible and then a copay. The patients may unexpectedly be billed for the entire fee if their insurance terminates, or if it does not pay for a submitted claim. And patients who carry public insurance may be seen at sites where there is no out-of-pocket cost to the patient; salaried clinicians often never know if the insurance has paid. In both of these settings, finances are usually discussed with administrative personnel and not with clinical staff.

Anthony Massey, MD, is founder of Maryland’s Gladstone Psychiatry and Wellness. The group is a multidisciplinary organization, and the clinicians participate with employer-based commercial health insurances. The group accepts payment directly from the insurer, and the patient is responsible for payment of the deductible and a copay.

“We try to understand what someone owes before the first appointment. We do an eligibility check online, and we ask for payment at the time of the appointment,” Massey explained. “Sometimes the insurance changes and we don’t know, or sometimes a patient comes to the appointment without the copay. We try to work with people, but if someone builds up a balance over $500, we tell them they can’t be seen here until it’s paid down. We’ll give patients a 30-day prescription and the names of other psychiatrists who accept insurance, but we don’t keep seeing people who don’t pay for their treatment.”

In all medical settings, unpaid bills present a problem, and while most psychiatrists have a method to deal with these issues, there is no perfect answer for every doctor in every situation. There is this tension between wanting to be kind and understanding of the hardships that people have whether those hardships result from life circumstances or from their own choices and behaviors, and of our own need to make the living we feel we deserve and to pay our own bills.

“The only advice I’d give other psychiatrists is to catch it early,” Reidbord said. “Have a policy that feels fair – payment before each session, payment just after each session, payment soon after receiving a monthly itemized statement, whatever seems right to you – and stick with it. If a patient doesn’t pay according to your clearly stated policy, explore it right away. Remember that pragmatic issues like poor budgeting or unexpected expenses are just as likely as intrapsychic conflict and ‘acting out.’ Both should be considered.”

I wish I could say that in the decades since I treated Mr. A that no patients have ever failed to pay their professional fees and that I have perfectly mastered my own issues with money as it pertains to professional fees. While the vast majority of patients do pay, there are still occasional circumstances in which someone’s financial circumstances change, or very rarely where someone ends his treatment without paying for the last few sessions.
 

Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice in Baltimore. Patient details were altered to preserve confidentiality.

 

Editor’s note: This is the second in a series of articles by Dr. Miller about challenges in outpatient psychiatry.

Mr. A lived a life that seemed glamorous to me. There were lunches with professional athletes, swank social events, and designer everything from clothes to cars. It was a world that I was not familiar with, and while I knew my patient worried about money, it seemed he had it. When he started therapy with me, Mr. A came to every session with a check. At some point, I realized that I had missed a switch in his mood. Despite his therapeutic level of lithium, Mr. A had become manic, and the expression of this mania took the form of even more spending. What started as an exciting lifestyle suddenly became tens of thousands of dollars of debt. I felt guilty that I initially did not see this as pathology, and as a young psychiatrist, I sought consultation with an older and wiser mentor.

After discussing the case, the consulting psychiatrist said to me, “Make sure you get paid; these cases are difficult.” In fact, in the midst of the chaos, Mr. A had stopped bringing a check to the sessions. I sent monthly statements, and they went unpaid. He didn’t have the money for his living expenses and I let this go on without addressing it for much too long. Soon, Mr. A’s debt to me was just one more stress in his life and while I knew I would not pursue reimbursement through legal channels, I did encourage him to find a psychiatrist who was in his insurance network, something he did not want to do. I was too embarrassed to tell the consulting psychiatrist that Mr. A had already accrued well over a thousand dollars in unpaid professional fees. In my mind, I was offering pro bono care because the patient’s financial circumstances had changed, and because I felt guilty that I had not recognized this as mania sooner.

In a 2011 Shrink Rap blog post, Jesse Hellman, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Towson, Md., wrote about the meaning of payment in psychotherapy:

“Money is something loaded with meaning to most people. What does it mean that the patient forgets to pay? Does it mean ‘if you really cared about me you would not charge me’? Is it a reflection of anger for something that occurred in the last session? Is it a displacement of feelings from something else (‘my boss didn’t give me the raise I expected’)? Is it completely inadvertent (Freud famously said ‘Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar’)?”

There are so many possibilities, and the psychodynamic therapist wants to understand them. How the patient relates to the therapist is some part of how he relates to others. The patient hopefully starts to watch his own actions and attitudes and also tries to understand them. A nonjudgmental stance helps the patient do this.

The therapist himself needs to be comfortable dealing with the subject of money. Sometimes beginning physicians fluctuate between feeling they are too inexperienced to be paid and feeling that they deserve anything they ask. We physicians might even (unfortunately) take on the attitudes of the insurance companies themselves (“Identification with the Aggressor”).

The blog post was flooded with comments –120 in total, and more comments than any other single Shrink Rap post received for the blog’s 12-year run.

Steven Reidbord, MD, is a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and also a blogger. Dr. Reidbord conversed with me through email about patients who don’t pay.

“In years past, I’ve had a few patients who met with me a few times, always ‘forgetting’ their payment and offering it ‘next time,’ until after three or four sessions, I refused to see them. I always wondered what such patients were thinking, as obviously this arrangement wouldn’t last long. Did they tell themselves they’d pay me at some point, in effect fooling themselves? Was it conscious theft of my services? A couple years ago, I started accepting charge cards, and perhaps as a result, this hasn’t happened. While it’s always useful to consider individual dynamics in explaining such behavior, it’s also important to consider normative psychology: Make it easier to pay, and more people will.”

While payment for out-of-network services is often clear cut – the patients pay and then requests reimbursement from their insurer – the logistics often are confusing for the patient. He or she may believe that she has excellent coverage, only to learn that the out-of-network deductible is very high, or that reimbursement is based on “usual and customary fees” that are much lower than his psychiatrist’s fees. Sometimes people take on the cost of psychiatric care and discover that it costs more than they assumed, or they have a change in their financial circumstances, as my patient did. Sometimes a parent is paying for treatment and decides he can no longer afford it.

“When someone’s financial circumstances change, they often let me know by proposing we meet less often, for example, every other week,” Dr. Reidbord wrote. “I ask to hear more and often offer to adjust my fee to allow weekly meetings to continue.”

Not all patients pay for psychiatric services, and that may make the discussion even harder. When psychiatrists participate with insurance, the patients are responsible for paying only their deductible and then a copay. The patients may unexpectedly be billed for the entire fee if their insurance terminates, or if it does not pay for a submitted claim. And patients who carry public insurance may be seen at sites where there is no out-of-pocket cost to the patient; salaried clinicians often never know if the insurance has paid. In both of these settings, finances are usually discussed with administrative personnel and not with clinical staff.

Anthony Massey, MD, is founder of Maryland’s Gladstone Psychiatry and Wellness. The group is a multidisciplinary organization, and the clinicians participate with employer-based commercial health insurances. The group accepts payment directly from the insurer, and the patient is responsible for payment of the deductible and a copay.

“We try to understand what someone owes before the first appointment. We do an eligibility check online, and we ask for payment at the time of the appointment,” Massey explained. “Sometimes the insurance changes and we don’t know, or sometimes a patient comes to the appointment without the copay. We try to work with people, but if someone builds up a balance over $500, we tell them they can’t be seen here until it’s paid down. We’ll give patients a 30-day prescription and the names of other psychiatrists who accept insurance, but we don’t keep seeing people who don’t pay for their treatment.”

In all medical settings, unpaid bills present a problem, and while most psychiatrists have a method to deal with these issues, there is no perfect answer for every doctor in every situation. There is this tension between wanting to be kind and understanding of the hardships that people have whether those hardships result from life circumstances or from their own choices and behaviors, and of our own need to make the living we feel we deserve and to pay our own bills.

“The only advice I’d give other psychiatrists is to catch it early,” Reidbord said. “Have a policy that feels fair – payment before each session, payment just after each session, payment soon after receiving a monthly itemized statement, whatever seems right to you – and stick with it. If a patient doesn’t pay according to your clearly stated policy, explore it right away. Remember that pragmatic issues like poor budgeting or unexpected expenses are just as likely as intrapsychic conflict and ‘acting out.’ Both should be considered.”

I wish I could say that in the decades since I treated Mr. A that no patients have ever failed to pay their professional fees and that I have perfectly mastered my own issues with money as it pertains to professional fees. While the vast majority of patients do pay, there are still occasional circumstances in which someone’s financial circumstances change, or very rarely where someone ends his treatment without paying for the last few sessions.
 

Dr. Miller is the coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice in Baltimore. Patient details were altered to preserve confidentiality.

 

 

It happens to all of us: You log onto the Internet one day and discover a scathing review from a disgruntled patient or family member, usually complaining about something totally irrelevant to the excellent care they received.

Urupong/Getty Images

Your first impulse may be to post a response, but wait – it turns out that “protected health information” is more liberally defined than most of us think. If you include any information that could be used to identify the patient, you can be considered in violation of HIPAA. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights; and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated HIPAA when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative review. And the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, has sent warning letters to a variety of physicians and dentists who divulged patient information while responding to reviews. (An HHS spokesperson couldn’t tell me how many such warnings have been issued, because they “don’t track complaints that way.”)

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are three such options:

• Ignore them. This is your best choice 90% of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response, and responding may simply pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site, and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated. If your total number of reviews on that site is too small – for example, there are only 4, and 2 are bad – you have what I call a denominator problem. The solution in those cases is to increase the denominator – that is, increase the total number of reviews. The more you can obtain, the less impact the complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, in your e-mail reminders, or simply leave a stack of requests at your check-out desk and tell your receptionist to hand them out. To be clear, you must encourage all reviews, good or bad, not just favorable ones; if you specify that all reviews must be favorable, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising.
• Respond generically. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies, or direct readers to positive reviews without referencing any individual cases. You might point out that HIPAA prevents you from disclosing information in response. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. In select situations, this has been very effective for me; in one case, the patient not only removed the negative post, but also became a loyal supporter. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can at least explain that on the site, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

 

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely, and I will address that in next month’s column.

Regardless of how you handle your negative reviews, be sure to learn from them. Your critics, as the song goes, are not always evil – and not always wrong. Complaints give you a chance to review your office policies and procedures and your own conduct, identify weaknesses, and make changes as necessary. At the very least, the exercise will help you to avoid similar complaints in the future. Don’t let valuable opportunities like that pass you by.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

 

 

 

It happens to all of us: You log onto the Internet one day and discover a scathing review from a disgruntled patient or family member, usually complaining about something totally irrelevant to the excellent care they received.

Urupong/Getty Images

Your first impulse may be to post a response, but wait – it turns out that “protected health information” is more liberally defined than most of us think. If you include any information that could be used to identify the patient, you can be considered in violation of HIPAA. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights; and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated HIPAA when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative review. And the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, has sent warning letters to a variety of physicians and dentists who divulged patient information while responding to reviews. (An HHS spokesperson couldn’t tell me how many such warnings have been issued, because they “don’t track complaints that way.”)

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are three such options:

• Ignore them. This is your best choice 90% of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response, and responding may simply pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site, and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated. If your total number of reviews on that site is too small – for example, there are only 4, and 2 are bad – you have what I call a denominator problem. The solution in those cases is to increase the denominator – that is, increase the total number of reviews. The more you can obtain, the less impact the complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, in your e-mail reminders, or simply leave a stack of requests at your check-out desk and tell your receptionist to hand them out. To be clear, you must encourage all reviews, good or bad, not just favorable ones; if you specify that all reviews must be favorable, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising.
• Respond generically. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies, or direct readers to positive reviews without referencing any individual cases. You might point out that HIPAA prevents you from disclosing information in response. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. In select situations, this has been very effective for me; in one case, the patient not only removed the negative post, but also became a loyal supporter. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can at least explain that on the site, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

 

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely, and I will address that in next month’s column.

Regardless of how you handle your negative reviews, be sure to learn from them. Your critics, as the song goes, are not always evil – and not always wrong. Complaints give you a chance to review your office policies and procedures and your own conduct, identify weaknesses, and make changes as necessary. At the very least, the exercise will help you to avoid similar complaints in the future. Don’t let valuable opportunities like that pass you by.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

 

 

 

It happens to all of us: You log onto the Internet one day and discover a scathing review from a disgruntled patient or family member, usually complaining about something totally irrelevant to the excellent care they received.

Urupong/Getty Images

Your first impulse may be to post a response, but wait – it turns out that “protected health information” is more liberally defined than most of us think. If you include any information that could be used to identify the patient, you can be considered in violation of HIPAA. This is true even if the patient has already disclosed information, because doing so does not nullify their HIPAA rights; and HIPAA provides no exceptions for responses. Even acknowledging that the reviewer was in fact your patient could, in some cases, be considered a violation.

In 2013, a California hospital paid $275,000 to settle claims that it violated HIPAA when it disclosed a patient’s health information in response to a negative review. And the Department of Health & Human Services, which enforces HIPAA, has sent warning letters to a variety of physicians and dentists who divulged patient information while responding to reviews. (An HHS spokesperson couldn’t tell me how many such warnings have been issued, because they “don’t track complaints that way.”)

All of that said, there are legal and ethical ways to deal with negative reviews. Here are three such options:

• Ignore them. This is your best choice 90% of the time. Most negative reviews have minimal impact and simply do not deserve a response, and responding may simply pour fuel on the fire. Besides, an occasional negative review actually lends credibility to a reviewing site, and to the positive reviews posted on that site. Polls show that readers are suspicious of sites that contain only rave reviews. They assume such reviews have been “whitewashed” – or just fabricated. If your total number of reviews on that site is too small – for example, there are only 4, and 2 are bad – you have what I call a denominator problem. The solution in those cases is to increase the denominator – that is, increase the total number of reviews. The more you can obtain, the less impact the complaints will have, since you know the overwhelming majority of your patients are happy with your care and will post a positive review if asked. Solicit them on your website, on social media, in your e-mail reminders, or simply leave a stack of requests at your check-out desk and tell your receptionist to hand them out. To be clear, you must encourage all reviews, good or bad, not just favorable ones; if you specify that all reviews must be favorable, you are “filtering,” which can be perceived as false or deceptive advertising.
• Respond generically. In those rare cases where you feel you must respond, do so without acknowledging that the individual was a patient, or disclosing any information that may be linked to the patient. For example, you can say that you provide excellent and appropriate care, or describe your general policies, or direct readers to positive reviews without referencing any individual cases. You might point out that HIPAA prevents you from disclosing information in response. Be polite, professional, and sensitive to the patient’s position. Readers tend to respect and sympathize with a doctor who responds in a professional, respectful manner and does not trash the complainant in retaliation.
• Take the discussion offline. Sometimes the person posting the review is just frustrated and wants to be heard. In those cases, consider contacting the patient and offering to discuss their concerns privately. In select situations, this has been very effective for me; in one case, the patient not only removed the negative post, but also became a loyal supporter. If you cannot resolve your differences, try to get the patient’s written permission to post a response to their review. If they refuse, you can at least explain that on the site, thereby capturing the moral high ground.

 

If the review contains false or defamatory content, that’s a different situation entirely, and I will address that in next month’s column.

Regardless of how you handle your negative reviews, be sure to learn from them. Your critics, as the song goes, are not always evil – and not always wrong. Complaints give you a chance to review your office policies and procedures and your own conduct, identify weaknesses, and make changes as necessary. At the very least, the exercise will help you to avoid similar complaints in the future. Don’t let valuable opportunities like that pass you by.

 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

 

 

 

Is America coming apart at the seams? According to the press, there are more things that divide us than bind us together. It’s red state versus blue state, it’s the privileged versus the disadvantaged, people of color versus the white majority. Could the great melting pot have cooled and its contents settled out into a dozen stratified layers?

Sean Locke/iStockphoto

Despite the image of a divided America that we see portrayed in the newspapers and on television, I continue to believe that there is more that we share in common than separate us, but it’s a struggle. The media operate on the assumption that conflict draws more readers than good news about cooperation and compromise. The situation is compounded by the apparent absence of a leader from either party who wants to unite us.

However, when one scratches the surface, there is surprising amount of agreement among Americans. For example, according to John Gramlich (“7 facts about guns in the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, Dec. 27, 2018), 89% of both Republicans and Democrats feel that people with mental illness should not be allowed to purchase a gun. And 79% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats favor background checks at gun shows and for private sales for purchase of a gun. As of 2018, 58% of Americans feel that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and only 37% feel it should be illegal in all or most cases. (“Public Opinion on Abortion,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 15, 2018).

At the core of many of our struggles to unite is a question that has bedeviled democracies for millennia: How does one balance a citizen’s freedom of choice with the health and safety of the society in which that person lives? While resolutions on gun control and abortion seem unlikely in the foreseeable future, the current outbreaks of measles offer America a rare opportunity to unite on an issue that pits personal freedom against societal safety.

According to Virginia Villa (“5 facts about vaccines in the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, Mar. 19, 2019), 82% of adults in the United States believe that the MMR vaccine should be required for public school attendance, while only 17% believe that parents should be allowed to leave their child unvaccinated even if their decision creates a health risk for other children and adults.

Why should we expect the government to respond to protect the population from the risk posed by the unvaccinated minority when it has done very little to further gun control? Obviously a key difference is that the antivaccination minority lacks the financial resources and political muscle of a large organization such as the National Rifle Association. While we must never underestimate the power of social media, the publicity surfacing from the mainstream media as the measles outbreaks in the United States have continued has prompted several states to rethink their policies regarding vaccination requirements and school attendance. Here in Maine, there has been strong support among the legislature for eliminating exemptions for philosophic or religious exemptions.

It is probably unrealistic to expect the federal government to act on the health threat caused by the antivaccine movement. However, it is encouraging that, at least at the local level, there is hope for closing one of the wounds that divide us. As providers who care for children, we should seize this opportunity created by the measles outbreaks to promote legislation and policies that strike a sensible balance between the right of the individual and the safety of the society at large.

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].

 

Is America coming apart at the seams? According to the press, there are more things that divide us than bind us together. It’s red state versus blue state, it’s the privileged versus the disadvantaged, people of color versus the white majority. Could the great melting pot have cooled and its contents settled out into a dozen stratified layers?

Sean Locke/iStockphoto

Despite the image of a divided America that we see portrayed in the newspapers and on television, I continue to believe that there is more that we share in common than separate us, but it’s a struggle. The media operate on the assumption that conflict draws more readers than good news about cooperation and compromise. The situation is compounded by the apparent absence of a leader from either party who wants to unite us.

However, when one scratches the surface, there is surprising amount of agreement among Americans. For example, according to John Gramlich (“7 facts about guns in the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, Dec. 27, 2018), 89% of both Republicans and Democrats feel that people with mental illness should not be allowed to purchase a gun. And 79% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats favor background checks at gun shows and for private sales for purchase of a gun. As of 2018, 58% of Americans feel that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and only 37% feel it should be illegal in all or most cases. (“Public Opinion on Abortion,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 15, 2018).

At the core of many of our struggles to unite is a question that has bedeviled democracies for millennia: How does one balance a citizen’s freedom of choice with the health and safety of the society in which that person lives? While resolutions on gun control and abortion seem unlikely in the foreseeable future, the current outbreaks of measles offer America a rare opportunity to unite on an issue that pits personal freedom against societal safety.

According to Virginia Villa (“5 facts about vaccines in the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, Mar. 19, 2019), 82% of adults in the United States believe that the MMR vaccine should be required for public school attendance, while only 17% believe that parents should be allowed to leave their child unvaccinated even if their decision creates a health risk for other children and adults.

Why should we expect the government to respond to protect the population from the risk posed by the unvaccinated minority when it has done very little to further gun control? Obviously a key difference is that the antivaccination minority lacks the financial resources and political muscle of a large organization such as the National Rifle Association. While we must never underestimate the power of social media, the publicity surfacing from the mainstream media as the measles outbreaks in the United States have continued has prompted several states to rethink their policies regarding vaccination requirements and school attendance. Here in Maine, there has been strong support among the legislature for eliminating exemptions for philosophic or religious exemptions.

It is probably unrealistic to expect the federal government to act on the health threat caused by the antivaccine movement. However, it is encouraging that, at least at the local level, there is hope for closing one of the wounds that divide us. As providers who care for children, we should seize this opportunity created by the measles outbreaks to promote legislation and policies that strike a sensible balance between the right of the individual and the safety of the society at large.

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].

 

Is America coming apart at the seams? According to the press, there are more things that divide us than bind us together. It’s red state versus blue state, it’s the privileged versus the disadvantaged, people of color versus the white majority. Could the great melting pot have cooled and its contents settled out into a dozen stratified layers?

Sean Locke/iStockphoto

Despite the image of a divided America that we see portrayed in the newspapers and on television, I continue to believe that there is more that we share in common than separate us, but it’s a struggle. The media operate on the assumption that conflict draws more readers than good news about cooperation and compromise. The situation is compounded by the apparent absence of a leader from either party who wants to unite us.

However, when one scratches the surface, there is surprising amount of agreement among Americans. For example, according to John Gramlich (“7 facts about guns in the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, Dec. 27, 2018), 89% of both Republicans and Democrats feel that people with mental illness should not be allowed to purchase a gun. And 79% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats favor background checks at gun shows and for private sales for purchase of a gun. As of 2018, 58% of Americans feel that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and only 37% feel it should be illegal in all or most cases. (“Public Opinion on Abortion,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 15, 2018).

At the core of many of our struggles to unite is a question that has bedeviled democracies for millennia: How does one balance a citizen’s freedom of choice with the health and safety of the society in which that person lives? While resolutions on gun control and abortion seem unlikely in the foreseeable future, the current outbreaks of measles offer America a rare opportunity to unite on an issue that pits personal freedom against societal safety.

According to Virginia Villa (“5 facts about vaccines in the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, Mar. 19, 2019), 82% of adults in the United States believe that the MMR vaccine should be required for public school attendance, while only 17% believe that parents should be allowed to leave their child unvaccinated even if their decision creates a health risk for other children and adults.

Why should we expect the government to respond to protect the population from the risk posed by the unvaccinated minority when it has done very little to further gun control? Obviously a key difference is that the antivaccination minority lacks the financial resources and political muscle of a large organization such as the National Rifle Association. While we must never underestimate the power of social media, the publicity surfacing from the mainstream media as the measles outbreaks in the United States have continued has prompted several states to rethink their policies regarding vaccination requirements and school attendance. Here in Maine, there has been strong support among the legislature for eliminating exemptions for philosophic or religious exemptions.

It is probably unrealistic to expect the federal government to act on the health threat caused by the antivaccine movement. However, it is encouraging that, at least at the local level, there is hope for closing one of the wounds that divide us. As providers who care for children, we should seize this opportunity created by the measles outbreaks to promote legislation and policies that strike a sensible balance between the right of the individual and the safety of the society at large.

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].

 

Are you happy with your current situation? Do you enjoy your job and look forward to getting home at the end of the day? Or, do you find your work unrewarding? Do you consider your home simply a place to wait impatiently until you can hop on a plane for your next getaway vacation?

wellesenterprises/Getty Images

Maybe you should consider relocating to Montana. According to the headline in an article by Richard Franki in Pediatric News (“Montana named ‘best state to practice medicine’ in 2019,” Mar. 28, 2019) the Treasure State is currently the best state to practice medicine. Big Sky Country earned this distinction by outdistancing 49 states and Washington, D.C., in a ranking by WalletHub. The personal finance website used 18 metrics ranging from average annual wage adjusted for cost of living to malpractice award payment per capita. One category of metrics grouped data related to “competition and opportunity” and the other “medical environment.”

I suspect that you are as skeptical as I am of surveys that claim to rank complex entities across broad geographic landscapes. I hope you are neither depressed or elated when your alma mater moves three positions on U.S. News and World Report’s ranking of colleges and universities. However, there are a few pearls hidden in this WalletHub attempt at choosing the most physician-friendly states.

New York was again ranked the worst state to practice medicine, a distinction it had “earned” in 2017 with a highest cost of malpractice insurance. This consistency suggests that there is a litigious atmosphere, at least in some parts of New York, that could make forging a trusting doctor-patient relationship difficult. Heading off to work each morning under the dark cloud of malpractice must take a lot of the fun out of practicing medicine.

The other interesting association buried in the ranking is that Montana is at the top of the list because it also was the state with the highest percentage of “medical residents retained.” This concurrence suggests that living and working in Big Sky Country provided a balance that young physicians found not just tolerable but so enjoyable they wanted to stay. I have been unable to find a complete listing of the raw data, but I suspect that Maine also could boast a high percentage of medical residents who choose to remain at the end of their training. It has been and continues to be a wonderful place to live and raise a family.

While there may be days when you feel as though the practice of medicine has consumed your every waking moment, the truth is that there is more to life than being a physician. Of course, one must be able to earn enough to support oneself and family, but this survey that purports to rank the best place to practice is too heavily weighted to the financial side of the equation and ignores the more difficult to quantify lifestyle qualities.

You may have found a position that pays well enough but requires a time-gobbling and stress-inducing commute to a place you feel comfortable living. Or, you may like your work, but find the community where you have settled lacks the suite of recreational and/or cultural opportunities you enjoy. Finding a place that offers the best mix of lifestyle and professional rewards that fits your wants and needs can be a matter of luck. Not everyone gets it right the first time. Sometimes it is a matter of making compromises and then continuing to reassess whether these compromises have been the best ones.

Regardless of its ranking on any survey, every state has multiple communities in which a physician can have a satisfying career and a lifestyle he or she enjoys. However, achieving this balanced mix may require the physician to invest something of him or herself into making that community one that feels like home.

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].

 

Are you happy with your current situation? Do you enjoy your job and look forward to getting home at the end of the day? Or, do you find your work unrewarding? Do you consider your home simply a place to wait impatiently until you can hop on a plane for your next getaway vacation?

wellesenterprises/Getty Images

Maybe you should consider relocating to Montana. According to the headline in an article by Richard Franki in Pediatric News (“Montana named ‘best state to practice medicine’ in 2019,” Mar. 28, 2019) the Treasure State is currently the best state to practice medicine. Big Sky Country earned this distinction by outdistancing 49 states and Washington, D.C., in a ranking by WalletHub. The personal finance website used 18 metrics ranging from average annual wage adjusted for cost of living to malpractice award payment per capita. One category of metrics grouped data related to “competition and opportunity” and the other “medical environment.”

I suspect that you are as skeptical as I am of surveys that claim to rank complex entities across broad geographic landscapes. I hope you are neither depressed or elated when your alma mater moves three positions on U.S. News and World Report’s ranking of colleges and universities. However, there are a few pearls hidden in this WalletHub attempt at choosing the most physician-friendly states.

New York was again ranked the worst state to practice medicine, a distinction it had “earned” in 2017 with a highest cost of malpractice insurance. This consistency suggests that there is a litigious atmosphere, at least in some parts of New York, that could make forging a trusting doctor-patient relationship difficult. Heading off to work each morning under the dark cloud of malpractice must take a lot of the fun out of practicing medicine.

The other interesting association buried in the ranking is that Montana is at the top of the list because it also was the state with the highest percentage of “medical residents retained.” This concurrence suggests that living and working in Big Sky Country provided a balance that young physicians found not just tolerable but so enjoyable they wanted to stay. I have been unable to find a complete listing of the raw data, but I suspect that Maine also could boast a high percentage of medical residents who choose to remain at the end of their training. It has been and continues to be a wonderful place to live and raise a family.

While there may be days when you feel as though the practice of medicine has consumed your every waking moment, the truth is that there is more to life than being a physician. Of course, one must be able to earn enough to support oneself and family, but this survey that purports to rank the best place to practice is too heavily weighted to the financial side of the equation and ignores the more difficult to quantify lifestyle qualities.

You may have found a position that pays well enough but requires a time-gobbling and stress-inducing commute to a place you feel comfortable living. Or, you may like your work, but find the community where you have settled lacks the suite of recreational and/or cultural opportunities you enjoy. Finding a place that offers the best mix of lifestyle and professional rewards that fits your wants and needs can be a matter of luck. Not everyone gets it right the first time. Sometimes it is a matter of making compromises and then continuing to reassess whether these compromises have been the best ones.

Regardless of its ranking on any survey, every state has multiple communities in which a physician can have a satisfying career and a lifestyle he or she enjoys. However, achieving this balanced mix may require the physician to invest something of him or herself into making that community one that feels like home.

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].

 

Are you happy with your current situation? Do you enjoy your job and look forward to getting home at the end of the day? Or, do you find your work unrewarding? Do you consider your home simply a place to wait impatiently until you can hop on a plane for your next getaway vacation?

wellesenterprises/Getty Images

Maybe you should consider relocating to Montana. According to the headline in an article by Richard Franki in Pediatric News (“Montana named ‘best state to practice medicine’ in 2019,” Mar. 28, 2019) the Treasure State is currently the best state to practice medicine. Big Sky Country earned this distinction by outdistancing 49 states and Washington, D.C., in a ranking by WalletHub. The personal finance website used 18 metrics ranging from average annual wage adjusted for cost of living to malpractice award payment per capita. One category of metrics grouped data related to “competition and opportunity” and the other “medical environment.”

I suspect that you are as skeptical as I am of surveys that claim to rank complex entities across broad geographic landscapes. I hope you are neither depressed or elated when your alma mater moves three positions on U.S. News and World Report’s ranking of colleges and universities. However, there are a few pearls hidden in this WalletHub attempt at choosing the most physician-friendly states.

New York was again ranked the worst state to practice medicine, a distinction it had “earned” in 2017 with a highest cost of malpractice insurance. This consistency suggests that there is a litigious atmosphere, at least in some parts of New York, that could make forging a trusting doctor-patient relationship difficult. Heading off to work each morning under the dark cloud of malpractice must take a lot of the fun out of practicing medicine.

The other interesting association buried in the ranking is that Montana is at the top of the list because it also was the state with the highest percentage of “medical residents retained.” This concurrence suggests that living and working in Big Sky Country provided a balance that young physicians found not just tolerable but so enjoyable they wanted to stay. I have been unable to find a complete listing of the raw data, but I suspect that Maine also could boast a high percentage of medical residents who choose to remain at the end of their training. It has been and continues to be a wonderful place to live and raise a family.

While there may be days when you feel as though the practice of medicine has consumed your every waking moment, the truth is that there is more to life than being a physician. Of course, one must be able to earn enough to support oneself and family, but this survey that purports to rank the best place to practice is too heavily weighted to the financial side of the equation and ignores the more difficult to quantify lifestyle qualities.

You may have found a position that pays well enough but requires a time-gobbling and stress-inducing commute to a place you feel comfortable living. Or, you may like your work, but find the community where you have settled lacks the suite of recreational and/or cultural opportunities you enjoy. Finding a place that offers the best mix of lifestyle and professional rewards that fits your wants and needs can be a matter of luck. Not everyone gets it right the first time. Sometimes it is a matter of making compromises and then continuing to reassess whether these compromises have been the best ones.

Regardless of its ranking on any survey, every state has multiple communities in which a physician can have a satisfying career and a lifestyle he or she enjoys. However, achieving this balanced mix may require the physician to invest something of him or herself into making that community one that feels like home.

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].

 

Since the biological revolution in psychiatry, with the introduction of chlorpromazine in the 1950s,1 psychiatrists have been introduced to the economic questions inherent in the tension between funding psychotropic medications for the treatment of mental illness versus funding psychosocial interventions. Of course, our natural inclination is to advocate for all available treatments for our patients, but the economic realities of medical care – especially government-subsidized or regulated medical care – force us to weigh the relative advantages of these treatments and to promote our patients’ interests with a wise allocation of limited resources.

It has become common practice for the American Psychiatric Association to advocate for additional funds for both research into mental illness as well as treatment. The promotion of mental health parity and the demonization of prior authorizations are examples of our natural priorities in the debates over funding for medical care. A bias has played out in the national conversation about medical care in general regarding the right to said care, but economists understand that medical care is a limited resource and, as such, treating it as a “right,” per se, does not make sense: One has to make hard decisions about its allocation or simply leave it to the free market to make said decisions.

Recently, the government has proposed to eliminate certain psychotropic medications from their protected status within Medicare Part D. Those medications include all drugs labeled as antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anticonvulsants. As expected, the APA’s medical director has written a formal statement opposing the proposal. His statement includes warnings about suicides and overwhelmed emergency departments. He compared the mental health situation in the United States to a crisis. He described the availability of expensive and new psychotropics to be “lifesaving.”²

The goals of the APA and its leaders are honorable. We are inspired by the dedication that some psychiatrists have to advocate for us all as well as for our patients. However, we are concerned that unfounded claims are being made. We are even more troubled when those claims promote the interests of a fallible pharmaceutical industry, an industry that has opened up our field to extensive critical scrutiny over the past few years. We wonder whether a brief examination of the scientific evidence warrants the statements made by the APA.

After reviewing clinical textbooks and search engines, we were not able to find reliable and convincing evidence that newer psychotropics reduce emergency department stays or that lengths of stay in the hospital correlate with the use of newer agents. We have actually not even heard of that claim made before in any serious forum. Reviews of predictors of length of stay in psychiatric hospitals have typically included demographic factors, diagnostic factors, logistical factors such as time of day, and social factors, such as insurance status and homelessness.^3,4 We found no review mentioning the use of patented drugs as a predictor of shorter stays.

At a larger level, we are unsure that the newer psychotropics are particularly better than older ones. The Food and Drug Administration approves psychiatric medications based on superiority to placebo and not superiority to existing – and usually much cheaper – medications. Our subscription to Epocrates informs us that a 1-month supply of once-a-day brand-name Abilify, Invega, or Latuda is more than $1,000.⁵ Alternatively, a 1-month supply of generic olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine is available for $4 at Walmart.⁶ As famously described in the CATIE trial⁷ of patients with schizophrenia, newer antipsychotics are not particularly better than older ones. In addition, a more recent meta-analysis⁸ did not find significant differences among antipsychotics’ efficacy.

A similar analysis can be made of antidepressants without addressing debates surrounding the effectiveness of antidepressants as a class and the value of psychological interventions over chemical ones. Reviews of the literature do not suggest that newer antidepressants are more effective than older ones. A recent meta-analysis of antidepressant efficacy did not find significant differences among antidepressants and, when looking at trends, amitriptyline, a much older antidepressant, was most effective.9

The most surprising part of the APA medical director’s statement was the claim of reduced suicidality. While lithium and clozapine have some evidence for reducing the risk of suicide, the evidence that antidepressants reduce suicide is equivocal. Quite the contrary, some evidence exists that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicide,¹⁰ and we are not aware of evidence suggesting that any newer agents can reduce suicide at any higher rate. One psychiatrist has even made a career out of testifying that antidepressants increase impulsivity and suicide.¹¹

We are not politicians, and we trust the APA to have good intentions with a desire to help patients suffering from mental illness. We understand the need to advocate for any measure that provides additional resources for the treatment of mental illness. We have no doubt that a publicly funded and appropriately regulated mental health system is a wise goal from both an ethical as well as a societal perspective. The APA has an imperative to advocate for our patients with the goal to improve our society.

However, we are concerned when our field makes unfounded claims. Advocating that insurance companies and the government provide most psychotropics without prior authorization and without discrimination does not appear to be based on scientific evidence and has serious economic implications that are not being weighed in a transparent manner. Whatever funding levels the APA recommends for the treatment of mental illness, said treatments will remain a limited resource, and then it becomes a question not just of ethics but of economics. What combination of resources produce the most benefit for the most people in question? Would the increased cost of a newer psychotropic be better spent on a system with more elaborate psychosocial interventions? In making this argument, does one risk repeating the historical blunder made when, in the 1960s, long-term psychiatric hospitals were closed with the intention of replacing their costs with outpatient treatments that then never materialized?

A review of the literature does not support the claim that newer psychotropic agents are more effective from either a clinical or an economic perspective. Cost-saving measures are ethical and possibly beneficial if they permit a more justifiable allocation of resources.



Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He is also the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Among his writings is Chapter 7 in the new book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019).
 

 

References

1. Ann Med Psychol (Paris). 1952 Jun;110(2 1):112-7.

2. https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.3b26.

3. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Feb;34(2):133-9.

4. Eur Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;48:6-12.

5. https://online.epocrates.com/drugs. Retrieved March 3, 2019.

6. https://www.walmart.com/cp/$4-prescriptions/1078664. Retrieved March 27, 2019.

7. N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 22;353(12):1209-23.

8. Am J Psychiatry. 2017. 174(10):927-42.

9. Lancet. 2018 Apr 7. 391(10128):P1357-66.

10. BMJ. 2009.339;b2880.

11. https://breggin.com/.

 

Since the biological revolution in psychiatry, with the introduction of chlorpromazine in the 1950s,1 psychiatrists have been introduced to the economic questions inherent in the tension between funding psychotropic medications for the treatment of mental illness versus funding psychosocial interventions. Of course, our natural inclination is to advocate for all available treatments for our patients, but the economic realities of medical care – especially government-subsidized or regulated medical care – force us to weigh the relative advantages of these treatments and to promote our patients’ interests with a wise allocation of limited resources.

It has become common practice for the American Psychiatric Association to advocate for additional funds for both research into mental illness as well as treatment. The promotion of mental health parity and the demonization of prior authorizations are examples of our natural priorities in the debates over funding for medical care. A bias has played out in the national conversation about medical care in general regarding the right to said care, but economists understand that medical care is a limited resource and, as such, treating it as a “right,” per se, does not make sense: One has to make hard decisions about its allocation or simply leave it to the free market to make said decisions.

Recently, the government has proposed to eliminate certain psychotropic medications from their protected status within Medicare Part D. Those medications include all drugs labeled as antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anticonvulsants. As expected, the APA’s medical director has written a formal statement opposing the proposal. His statement includes warnings about suicides and overwhelmed emergency departments. He compared the mental health situation in the United States to a crisis. He described the availability of expensive and new psychotropics to be “lifesaving.”²

The goals of the APA and its leaders are honorable. We are inspired by the dedication that some psychiatrists have to advocate for us all as well as for our patients. However, we are concerned that unfounded claims are being made. We are even more troubled when those claims promote the interests of a fallible pharmaceutical industry, an industry that has opened up our field to extensive critical scrutiny over the past few years. We wonder whether a brief examination of the scientific evidence warrants the statements made by the APA.

After reviewing clinical textbooks and search engines, we were not able to find reliable and convincing evidence that newer psychotropics reduce emergency department stays or that lengths of stay in the hospital correlate with the use of newer agents. We have actually not even heard of that claim made before in any serious forum. Reviews of predictors of length of stay in psychiatric hospitals have typically included demographic factors, diagnostic factors, logistical factors such as time of day, and social factors, such as insurance status and homelessness.^3,4 We found no review mentioning the use of patented drugs as a predictor of shorter stays.

At a larger level, we are unsure that the newer psychotropics are particularly better than older ones. The Food and Drug Administration approves psychiatric medications based on superiority to placebo and not superiority to existing – and usually much cheaper – medications. Our subscription to Epocrates informs us that a 1-month supply of once-a-day brand-name Abilify, Invega, or Latuda is more than $1,000.⁵ Alternatively, a 1-month supply of generic olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine is available for $4 at Walmart.⁶ As famously described in the CATIE trial⁷ of patients with schizophrenia, newer antipsychotics are not particularly better than older ones. In addition, a more recent meta-analysis⁸ did not find significant differences among antipsychotics’ efficacy.

A similar analysis can be made of antidepressants without addressing debates surrounding the effectiveness of antidepressants as a class and the value of psychological interventions over chemical ones. Reviews of the literature do not suggest that newer antidepressants are more effective than older ones. A recent meta-analysis of antidepressant efficacy did not find significant differences among antidepressants and, when looking at trends, amitriptyline, a much older antidepressant, was most effective.9

The most surprising part of the APA medical director’s statement was the claim of reduced suicidality. While lithium and clozapine have some evidence for reducing the risk of suicide, the evidence that antidepressants reduce suicide is equivocal. Quite the contrary, some evidence exists that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicide,¹⁰ and we are not aware of evidence suggesting that any newer agents can reduce suicide at any higher rate. One psychiatrist has even made a career out of testifying that antidepressants increase impulsivity and suicide.¹¹

We are not politicians, and we trust the APA to have good intentions with a desire to help patients suffering from mental illness. We understand the need to advocate for any measure that provides additional resources for the treatment of mental illness. We have no doubt that a publicly funded and appropriately regulated mental health system is a wise goal from both an ethical as well as a societal perspective. The APA has an imperative to advocate for our patients with the goal to improve our society.

However, we are concerned when our field makes unfounded claims. Advocating that insurance companies and the government provide most psychotropics without prior authorization and without discrimination does not appear to be based on scientific evidence and has serious economic implications that are not being weighed in a transparent manner. Whatever funding levels the APA recommends for the treatment of mental illness, said treatments will remain a limited resource, and then it becomes a question not just of ethics but of economics. What combination of resources produce the most benefit for the most people in question? Would the increased cost of a newer psychotropic be better spent on a system with more elaborate psychosocial interventions? In making this argument, does one risk repeating the historical blunder made when, in the 1960s, long-term psychiatric hospitals were closed with the intention of replacing their costs with outpatient treatments that then never materialized?

A review of the literature does not support the claim that newer psychotropic agents are more effective from either a clinical or an economic perspective. Cost-saving measures are ethical and possibly beneficial if they permit a more justifiable allocation of resources.



Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He is also the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Among his writings is Chapter 7 in the new book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019).
 

 

References

1. Ann Med Psychol (Paris). 1952 Jun;110(2 1):112-7.

2. https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.3b26.

3. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Feb;34(2):133-9.

4. Eur Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;48:6-12.

5. https://online.epocrates.com/drugs. Retrieved March 3, 2019.

6. https://www.walmart.com/cp/$4-prescriptions/1078664. Retrieved March 27, 2019.

7. N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 22;353(12):1209-23.

8. Am J Psychiatry. 2017. 174(10):927-42.

9. Lancet. 2018 Apr 7. 391(10128):P1357-66.

10. BMJ. 2009.339;b2880.

11. https://breggin.com/.

 

Since the biological revolution in psychiatry, with the introduction of chlorpromazine in the 1950s,1 psychiatrists have been introduced to the economic questions inherent in the tension between funding psychotropic medications for the treatment of mental illness versus funding psychosocial interventions. Of course, our natural inclination is to advocate for all available treatments for our patients, but the economic realities of medical care – especially government-subsidized or regulated medical care – force us to weigh the relative advantages of these treatments and to promote our patients’ interests with a wise allocation of limited resources.

It has become common practice for the American Psychiatric Association to advocate for additional funds for both research into mental illness as well as treatment. The promotion of mental health parity and the demonization of prior authorizations are examples of our natural priorities in the debates over funding for medical care. A bias has played out in the national conversation about medical care in general regarding the right to said care, but economists understand that medical care is a limited resource and, as such, treating it as a “right,” per se, does not make sense: One has to make hard decisions about its allocation or simply leave it to the free market to make said decisions.

Recently, the government has proposed to eliminate certain psychotropic medications from their protected status within Medicare Part D. Those medications include all drugs labeled as antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anticonvulsants. As expected, the APA’s medical director has written a formal statement opposing the proposal. His statement includes warnings about suicides and overwhelmed emergency departments. He compared the mental health situation in the United States to a crisis. He described the availability of expensive and new psychotropics to be “lifesaving.”²

The goals of the APA and its leaders are honorable. We are inspired by the dedication that some psychiatrists have to advocate for us all as well as for our patients. However, we are concerned that unfounded claims are being made. We are even more troubled when those claims promote the interests of a fallible pharmaceutical industry, an industry that has opened up our field to extensive critical scrutiny over the past few years. We wonder whether a brief examination of the scientific evidence warrants the statements made by the APA.

After reviewing clinical textbooks and search engines, we were not able to find reliable and convincing evidence that newer psychotropics reduce emergency department stays or that lengths of stay in the hospital correlate with the use of newer agents. We have actually not even heard of that claim made before in any serious forum. Reviews of predictors of length of stay in psychiatric hospitals have typically included demographic factors, diagnostic factors, logistical factors such as time of day, and social factors, such as insurance status and homelessness.^3,4 We found no review mentioning the use of patented drugs as a predictor of shorter stays.

At a larger level, we are unsure that the newer psychotropics are particularly better than older ones. The Food and Drug Administration approves psychiatric medications based on superiority to placebo and not superiority to existing – and usually much cheaper – medications. Our subscription to Epocrates informs us that a 1-month supply of once-a-day brand-name Abilify, Invega, or Latuda is more than $1,000.⁵ Alternatively, a 1-month supply of generic olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine is available for $4 at Walmart.⁶ As famously described in the CATIE trial⁷ of patients with schizophrenia, newer antipsychotics are not particularly better than older ones. In addition, a more recent meta-analysis⁸ did not find significant differences among antipsychotics’ efficacy.

A similar analysis can be made of antidepressants without addressing debates surrounding the effectiveness of antidepressants as a class and the value of psychological interventions over chemical ones. Reviews of the literature do not suggest that newer antidepressants are more effective than older ones. A recent meta-analysis of antidepressant efficacy did not find significant differences among antidepressants and, when looking at trends, amitriptyline, a much older antidepressant, was most effective.9

The most surprising part of the APA medical director’s statement was the claim of reduced suicidality. While lithium and clozapine have some evidence for reducing the risk of suicide, the evidence that antidepressants reduce suicide is equivocal. Quite the contrary, some evidence exists that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicide,¹⁰ and we are not aware of evidence suggesting that any newer agents can reduce suicide at any higher rate. One psychiatrist has even made a career out of testifying that antidepressants increase impulsivity and suicide.¹¹

We are not politicians, and we trust the APA to have good intentions with a desire to help patients suffering from mental illness. We understand the need to advocate for any measure that provides additional resources for the treatment of mental illness. We have no doubt that a publicly funded and appropriately regulated mental health system is a wise goal from both an ethical as well as a societal perspective. The APA has an imperative to advocate for our patients with the goal to improve our society.

However, we are concerned when our field makes unfounded claims. Advocating that insurance companies and the government provide most psychotropics without prior authorization and without discrimination does not appear to be based on scientific evidence and has serious economic implications that are not being weighed in a transparent manner. Whatever funding levels the APA recommends for the treatment of mental illness, said treatments will remain a limited resource, and then it becomes a question not just of ethics but of economics. What combination of resources produce the most benefit for the most people in question? Would the increased cost of a newer psychotropic be better spent on a system with more elaborate psychosocial interventions? In making this argument, does one risk repeating the historical blunder made when, in the 1960s, long-term psychiatric hospitals were closed with the intention of replacing their costs with outpatient treatments that then never materialized?

A review of the literature does not support the claim that newer psychotropic agents are more effective from either a clinical or an economic perspective. Cost-saving measures are ethical and possibly beneficial if they permit a more justifiable allocation of resources.



Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He is also the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Among his writings is Chapter 7 in the new book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019).
 

 

References

1. Ann Med Psychol (Paris). 1952 Jun;110(2 1):112-7.

2. https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.3b26.

3. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Feb;34(2):133-9.

4. Eur Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;48:6-12.

5. https://online.epocrates.com/drugs. Retrieved March 3, 2019.

6. https://www.walmart.com/cp/$4-prescriptions/1078664. Retrieved March 27, 2019.

7. N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 22;353(12):1209-23.

8. Am J Psychiatry. 2017. 174(10):927-42.

9. Lancet. 2018 Apr 7. 391(10128):P1357-66.

10. BMJ. 2009.339;b2880.

11. https://breggin.com/.

 

Welcome to the first edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” a regular column analyzing the practical clinical relevance of the latest literature. In this first column, I will take a look at two interesting studies – a combination hormonal treatment for metastatic ER-positive breast cancer and aspirin therapy for prevention of hepatocellular cancer.

Anastrozole plus fulvestrant

In a large SWOG trial for postmenopausal patients with stage IV, hormonally responsive breast cancer whose metastatic disease could be treated with frontline hormonal therapy, long-term survival analysis showed that the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone, with essentially no increase in toxicity.

The study – “Overall Survival With Fulvestrant Plus Anastrozole in Metastatic Breast Cancer” – was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;380:1226-34).

The overall survival difference was not only statistically and clinically significant, but impressively so among patients who had not received prior adjuvant hormonal therapy. That is despite the fact that 45% of patients who were assigned to initial treatment with anastrozole received single agent fulvestrant at first relapse.

What this means in practice

Because of the generally negative results of combined hormonal therapy in comparison with sequential use of the same agents and the potency of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with hormonal agents in the frontline setting, many oncologists have forgotten the initial publication of this regimen in 2012. In that study, the combination demonstrated improved progression-free survival over anastrozole alone, particularly in the subset of patients who presented with stage IV breast cancer as their initial presentation.

Although the benefits for CDK4/6 inhibitors as an addition to hormonal therapy are truly impressive, the practical aspects of utilizing the CDK4/6 inhibitors may be prohibitive for a small subset of our most vulnerable, medically underserved patients. Specifically, these are patients who are unable to return for frequent blood counts in the initial few months of therapy, patients with limited financial resources who cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs of an expensive oral medication and required laboratory testing, those with difficulty adhering to oral medication regimens, or those with constitutional neutropenia.

Not coincidentally, many of these patients are exactly the ones who present with stage IV disease as their initial manifestation of breast cancer. For such patients, the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant is an attractive alternative and may offer competitive survival benefits. This is not “yesterday’s therapy” in the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors, but rather represents a valuable option for treatment in at-risk populations.

When I see my next patient who presents with stage IV breast cancer, I will consider combined hormonal therapy among the various available treatment options.

Aspirin to prevent HCC

Investigators at Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital recently analyzed 16 years of data from a cohort of more than 10,000 patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and found statistically significantly fewer cases of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in patients who took antiviral antinucleoside analogue therapy, statins, and aspirin.

 

The study – “Association of Daily Aspirin Therapy With Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B” – was published in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8342).

Although there were more impressive reductions in relative risk of HCC among statin and antinucleoside analogue users, the authors highlighted that HCC developed in 5.20% of the approximately 2,100 chronic aspirin users and in 7.87% of nonusers – a 29% relative reduction in risk in this cohort study. Toxicity, including upper GI bleeding, was low.

What this means in practice

This is a hypothesis-generating analysis at best. Although the authors highlight possible mechanisms by which aspirin use could lead to reduction in HCC among patients with chronic inflammatory conditions affecting the liver, the study produces more questions than it answers (dose, chronicity of use, duration of protection, biomarkers for benefit).

Owing to the simplicity and low cost of the intervention, it may be worth studying prospectively in chronic HBV-infected patients and other populations at risk for HCC, but the intervention should not be adopted at this point based on an international cohort study.

The practicality of conducting such a large, complicated, prospective study of a widely available medication that has widely publicized additional health benefits is an open question.

When I see my next patient with a high risk for HCC, I won’t prescribe aspirin for chemoprevention.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

 

Welcome to the first edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” a regular column analyzing the practical clinical relevance of the latest literature. In this first column, I will take a look at two interesting studies – a combination hormonal treatment for metastatic ER-positive breast cancer and aspirin therapy for prevention of hepatocellular cancer.

Anastrozole plus fulvestrant

In a large SWOG trial for postmenopausal patients with stage IV, hormonally responsive breast cancer whose metastatic disease could be treated with frontline hormonal therapy, long-term survival analysis showed that the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone, with essentially no increase in toxicity.

The study – “Overall Survival With Fulvestrant Plus Anastrozole in Metastatic Breast Cancer” – was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;380:1226-34).

The overall survival difference was not only statistically and clinically significant, but impressively so among patients who had not received prior adjuvant hormonal therapy. That is despite the fact that 45% of patients who were assigned to initial treatment with anastrozole received single agent fulvestrant at first relapse.

What this means in practice

Because of the generally negative results of combined hormonal therapy in comparison with sequential use of the same agents and the potency of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with hormonal agents in the frontline setting, many oncologists have forgotten the initial publication of this regimen in 2012. In that study, the combination demonstrated improved progression-free survival over anastrozole alone, particularly in the subset of patients who presented with stage IV breast cancer as their initial presentation.

Although the benefits for CDK4/6 inhibitors as an addition to hormonal therapy are truly impressive, the practical aspects of utilizing the CDK4/6 inhibitors may be prohibitive for a small subset of our most vulnerable, medically underserved patients. Specifically, these are patients who are unable to return for frequent blood counts in the initial few months of therapy, patients with limited financial resources who cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs of an expensive oral medication and required laboratory testing, those with difficulty adhering to oral medication regimens, or those with constitutional neutropenia.

Not coincidentally, many of these patients are exactly the ones who present with stage IV disease as their initial manifestation of breast cancer. For such patients, the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant is an attractive alternative and may offer competitive survival benefits. This is not “yesterday’s therapy” in the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors, but rather represents a valuable option for treatment in at-risk populations.

When I see my next patient who presents with stage IV breast cancer, I will consider combined hormonal therapy among the various available treatment options.

Aspirin to prevent HCC

Investigators at Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital recently analyzed 16 years of data from a cohort of more than 10,000 patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and found statistically significantly fewer cases of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in patients who took antiviral antinucleoside analogue therapy, statins, and aspirin.

 

The study – “Association of Daily Aspirin Therapy With Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B” – was published in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8342).

Although there were more impressive reductions in relative risk of HCC among statin and antinucleoside analogue users, the authors highlighted that HCC developed in 5.20% of the approximately 2,100 chronic aspirin users and in 7.87% of nonusers – a 29% relative reduction in risk in this cohort study. Toxicity, including upper GI bleeding, was low.

What this means in practice

This is a hypothesis-generating analysis at best. Although the authors highlight possible mechanisms by which aspirin use could lead to reduction in HCC among patients with chronic inflammatory conditions affecting the liver, the study produces more questions than it answers (dose, chronicity of use, duration of protection, biomarkers for benefit).

Owing to the simplicity and low cost of the intervention, it may be worth studying prospectively in chronic HBV-infected patients and other populations at risk for HCC, but the intervention should not be adopted at this point based on an international cohort study.

The practicality of conducting such a large, complicated, prospective study of a widely available medication that has widely publicized additional health benefits is an open question.

When I see my next patient with a high risk for HCC, I won’t prescribe aspirin for chemoprevention.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

 

Welcome to the first edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” a regular column analyzing the practical clinical relevance of the latest literature. In this first column, I will take a look at two interesting studies – a combination hormonal treatment for metastatic ER-positive breast cancer and aspirin therapy for prevention of hepatocellular cancer.

Anastrozole plus fulvestrant

In a large SWOG trial for postmenopausal patients with stage IV, hormonally responsive breast cancer whose metastatic disease could be treated with frontline hormonal therapy, long-term survival analysis showed that the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone, with essentially no increase in toxicity.

The study – “Overall Survival With Fulvestrant Plus Anastrozole in Metastatic Breast Cancer” – was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019;380:1226-34).

The overall survival difference was not only statistically and clinically significant, but impressively so among patients who had not received prior adjuvant hormonal therapy. That is despite the fact that 45% of patients who were assigned to initial treatment with anastrozole received single agent fulvestrant at first relapse.

What this means in practice

Because of the generally negative results of combined hormonal therapy in comparison with sequential use of the same agents and the potency of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with hormonal agents in the frontline setting, many oncologists have forgotten the initial publication of this regimen in 2012. In that study, the combination demonstrated improved progression-free survival over anastrozole alone, particularly in the subset of patients who presented with stage IV breast cancer as their initial presentation.

Although the benefits for CDK4/6 inhibitors as an addition to hormonal therapy are truly impressive, the practical aspects of utilizing the CDK4/6 inhibitors may be prohibitive for a small subset of our most vulnerable, medically underserved patients. Specifically, these are patients who are unable to return for frequent blood counts in the initial few months of therapy, patients with limited financial resources who cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs of an expensive oral medication and required laboratory testing, those with difficulty adhering to oral medication regimens, or those with constitutional neutropenia.

Not coincidentally, many of these patients are exactly the ones who present with stage IV disease as their initial manifestation of breast cancer. For such patients, the combination of anastrozole plus fulvestrant is an attractive alternative and may offer competitive survival benefits. This is not “yesterday’s therapy” in the era of CDK4/6 inhibitors, but rather represents a valuable option for treatment in at-risk populations.

When I see my next patient who presents with stage IV breast cancer, I will consider combined hormonal therapy among the various available treatment options.

Aspirin to prevent HCC

Investigators at Taichung (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital recently analyzed 16 years of data from a cohort of more than 10,000 patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and found statistically significantly fewer cases of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in patients who took antiviral antinucleoside analogue therapy, statins, and aspirin.

 

The study – “Association of Daily Aspirin Therapy With Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B” – was published in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.8342).

Although there were more impressive reductions in relative risk of HCC among statin and antinucleoside analogue users, the authors highlighted that HCC developed in 5.20% of the approximately 2,100 chronic aspirin users and in 7.87% of nonusers – a 29% relative reduction in risk in this cohort study. Toxicity, including upper GI bleeding, was low.

What this means in practice

This is a hypothesis-generating analysis at best. Although the authors highlight possible mechanisms by which aspirin use could lead to reduction in HCC among patients with chronic inflammatory conditions affecting the liver, the study produces more questions than it answers (dose, chronicity of use, duration of protection, biomarkers for benefit).

Owing to the simplicity and low cost of the intervention, it may be worth studying prospectively in chronic HBV-infected patients and other populations at risk for HCC, but the intervention should not be adopted at this point based on an international cohort study.

The practicality of conducting such a large, complicated, prospective study of a widely available medication that has widely publicized additional health benefits is an open question.

When I see my next patient with a high risk for HCC, I won’t prescribe aspirin for chemoprevention.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers, and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

Seniors who move into and live in long-term care facilities are at increased risk of suicide, according to reporting by the PBS NewsHour and Kaiser Health News. The report focused on the story of Roland K. Tiedemann, a senior who, in his younger days, was an outdoorsman, traveled around the world, and served as a surrogate dad to his granddaughter. When his health deteriorated, he moved to a long-term care facility with his wife, who later was diagnosed with dementia. At age 89, Mr. Tiedemann, who was facing a third move into a facility that would take Medicaid, “locked his door ... and jumped to his death from his fourth floor window,” the report said. The death of Mr. Tiedemann led Julie A. Rickard, PhD, to start asking questions at his facility and working with other centers to identify the signs of depression. A few years earlier, after a “rash of suicides, mostly among young people,” Dr. Rickard had started developing the Suicide Prevention Coalition of North Central Washington. After looking into policies at long-term care facilities, Dr. Rickard began recommending changes that she hoped would prove protective. For example, in some cases, residents are “paired with people who are not adjusting well to those who are.” It is also important for families to ask whether suicide prevention and mental health protocols are in place at long-term care facilities. Ultimately, Dr. Rickard and Jane Davis – Mr. Tiedemann’s daughter – agree that stigma needs to be reduced so that residents feel free to talk their depression and anxiety. PBS NewsHour.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

More and more people are using mental health apps, and a new study has found that few of those apps have a sound scientific basis for their claims. The researchers scoured iTunes and Google Play for 1,435 mental health apps. These were whittled to 73 of the most popular. The apps addressed common mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, as well as some less common illnesses, such as schizophrenia. Of the 73 apps, 47 claimed to be able to effectively diagnose the target condition, improve the user symptoms or mood, and bolster self-management. In about 40% of cases, the app site trotted out scientific language to buttress claims of effectiveness. However, when the researchers took a rigorous look at the science behind the apps, only one was based on a published study. Moreover, for about one-third of the apps, no supporting scientific at all could be found. Science speak did not translate into evidence-based science. The annual market for self-improvement products and apps, including those focusing on mental health, is $10 billion in the United States. Forbes.

Police officers trained in helping people with mental health problems can get positive results, a newspaper report shows. That’s what happened when Logan Elliott called Clive, Iowa, police to report that his fiancé had threatened suicide – and had had a prior attempt, according to the Des Moines Register. Mr. Elliott’s fiancé, Codii Lewis, was in a “depressive state,” was suffering from the loss of his dog, and was troubled by uncertainty regarding the cost of a procedure undertaken to confirm his gender as a transgender man; as a result, Mr. Lewis climbed onto a ledge. He streamed video of his encounter with the police on Facebook Live, and eventually, after kicking one of the officers, he was subdued and taken into custody. The training that Clive officers receive “calls for less aggressive behavior by police,” the article said. “It emphasizes de-escalation, especially when the subject may be suicidal. It doesn’t expect officers to be therapists or handle all mental health situations, but it does ask that they handle mental health situations differently” from the way they might handle other calls. People with mental illness that is untreated are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement than are people without mental illness. Des Moines Register.

 

An exhibit now running at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., is intended to put a human face on mental illness. The 99 Faces Project: Portraits Without Labels by Boston-area artist Lynda Michaud Cutrell presents photos of people with serious mental illnesses and those who love them, the New Hampshire Union Leader reported. Portraits were taken with the help of three photographers nationwide. The long list was trimmed to 99 that mirror the ethnic makeup of the U.S. population. The roster of individuals includes 33 with schizophrenia and 33 with bipolar disorder. The remaining 33 are “chronically normal” according to Ms. Cutrell. The viewer can’t tell the difference between the mentally affected individuals and those who are not; they look like people one encounters every day. And that’s the point. Marianne Barthel, director of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Arts Program, hopes the exhibit leads to conversations that help “normalize mental health in our society, to recognize that the people you’re looking at in these images could be you or your family member,” the article said. Ms. Barthel also hopes that the exhibit, which runs until September, will help reduce the stigma around mental illness by showing that “there are people who are living successful lives with these illnesses.” One of the 99 faces is that of actress Glenn Close, who cofounded the organization Bring Change To Mind in 2010 after her sister was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and her nephew with schizoaffective disorder. New Hampshire Union Leader.

Deliberation about the use of the death penalty for a prisoner in Kansas has implications for those with mental illness who commit crimes. As the Topeka Capital-Journal reported, James Kahler was convicted of murdering his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Two years later, he was sentenced to death, and several years later, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld that conviction. His guilt is not in question. What is at issue is his impairment. His lawyers had earlier argued that severe depression had made his grip on reality tenuous and that he could not be executed. Now comes the news that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule whether the decision by the state of Kansas to abolish insanity as a defense was constitutional under the 8th and 14th amendments. The high court’s ruling will have profound implications for people with mental illness. In addition to those in Kansas, under state laws in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Utah, “a traditional insanity defense in which a person must understand the difference between right and wrong before being found guilty of a crime isn’t allowed,” the report said. An accused can cite “mental disease or defect” as a partial defense. However, in such cases, it must be proven that the person had no intention of committing a crime. In their petition to the Supreme Court, his attorneys argued that he knew he was shooting people, but that he was so disturbed at the time that he could not stop himself. “A favorable decision would make it clear that the Constitution requires that a defendant be able to understand the difference between right and wrong before being found guilty, and, in cases like Mr. Kahler’s, put to death,” his defense attorney, Meryle Carver-Allmond, told the Capital-Journal. “We’re hopeful that, in taking Mr. Kahler’s case, the United States Supreme Court has indicated a desire to find that the Constitution requires better of us in our treatment of mentally ill defendants.” The Topeka Capital-Journal.

Seniors who move into and live in long-term care facilities are at increased risk of suicide, according to reporting by the PBS NewsHour and Kaiser Health News. The report focused on the story of Roland K. Tiedemann, a senior who, in his younger days, was an outdoorsman, traveled around the world, and served as a surrogate dad to his granddaughter. When his health deteriorated, he moved to a long-term care facility with his wife, who later was diagnosed with dementia. At age 89, Mr. Tiedemann, who was facing a third move into a facility that would take Medicaid, “locked his door ... and jumped to his death from his fourth floor window,” the report said. The death of Mr. Tiedemann led Julie A. Rickard, PhD, to start asking questions at his facility and working with other centers to identify the signs of depression. A few years earlier, after a “rash of suicides, mostly among young people,” Dr. Rickard had started developing the Suicide Prevention Coalition of North Central Washington. After looking into policies at long-term care facilities, Dr. Rickard began recommending changes that she hoped would prove protective. For example, in some cases, residents are “paired with people who are not adjusting well to those who are.” It is also important for families to ask whether suicide prevention and mental health protocols are in place at long-term care facilities. Ultimately, Dr. Rickard and Jane Davis – Mr. Tiedemann’s daughter – agree that stigma needs to be reduced so that residents feel free to talk their depression and anxiety. PBS NewsHour.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

More and more people are using mental health apps, and a new study has found that few of those apps have a sound scientific basis for their claims. The researchers scoured iTunes and Google Play for 1,435 mental health apps. These were whittled to 73 of the most popular. The apps addressed common mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, as well as some less common illnesses, such as schizophrenia. Of the 73 apps, 47 claimed to be able to effectively diagnose the target condition, improve the user symptoms or mood, and bolster self-management. In about 40% of cases, the app site trotted out scientific language to buttress claims of effectiveness. However, when the researchers took a rigorous look at the science behind the apps, only one was based on a published study. Moreover, for about one-third of the apps, no supporting scientific at all could be found. Science speak did not translate into evidence-based science. The annual market for self-improvement products and apps, including those focusing on mental health, is $10 billion in the United States. Forbes.

Police officers trained in helping people with mental health problems can get positive results, a newspaper report shows. That’s what happened when Logan Elliott called Clive, Iowa, police to report that his fiancé had threatened suicide – and had had a prior attempt, according to the Des Moines Register. Mr. Elliott’s fiancé, Codii Lewis, was in a “depressive state,” was suffering from the loss of his dog, and was troubled by uncertainty regarding the cost of a procedure undertaken to confirm his gender as a transgender man; as a result, Mr. Lewis climbed onto a ledge. He streamed video of his encounter with the police on Facebook Live, and eventually, after kicking one of the officers, he was subdued and taken into custody. The training that Clive officers receive “calls for less aggressive behavior by police,” the article said. “It emphasizes de-escalation, especially when the subject may be suicidal. It doesn’t expect officers to be therapists or handle all mental health situations, but it does ask that they handle mental health situations differently” from the way they might handle other calls. People with mental illness that is untreated are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement than are people without mental illness. Des Moines Register.

 

An exhibit now running at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., is intended to put a human face on mental illness. The 99 Faces Project: Portraits Without Labels by Boston-area artist Lynda Michaud Cutrell presents photos of people with serious mental illnesses and those who love them, the New Hampshire Union Leader reported. Portraits were taken with the help of three photographers nationwide. The long list was trimmed to 99 that mirror the ethnic makeup of the U.S. population. The roster of individuals includes 33 with schizophrenia and 33 with bipolar disorder. The remaining 33 are “chronically normal” according to Ms. Cutrell. The viewer can’t tell the difference between the mentally affected individuals and those who are not; they look like people one encounters every day. And that’s the point. Marianne Barthel, director of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Arts Program, hopes the exhibit leads to conversations that help “normalize mental health in our society, to recognize that the people you’re looking at in these images could be you or your family member,” the article said. Ms. Barthel also hopes that the exhibit, which runs until September, will help reduce the stigma around mental illness by showing that “there are people who are living successful lives with these illnesses.” One of the 99 faces is that of actress Glenn Close, who cofounded the organization Bring Change To Mind in 2010 after her sister was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and her nephew with schizoaffective disorder. New Hampshire Union Leader.

Deliberation about the use of the death penalty for a prisoner in Kansas has implications for those with mental illness who commit crimes. As the Topeka Capital-Journal reported, James Kahler was convicted of murdering his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Two years later, he was sentenced to death, and several years later, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld that conviction. His guilt is not in question. What is at issue is his impairment. His lawyers had earlier argued that severe depression had made his grip on reality tenuous and that he could not be executed. Now comes the news that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule whether the decision by the state of Kansas to abolish insanity as a defense was constitutional under the 8th and 14th amendments. The high court’s ruling will have profound implications for people with mental illness. In addition to those in Kansas, under state laws in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Utah, “a traditional insanity defense in which a person must understand the difference between right and wrong before being found guilty of a crime isn’t allowed,” the report said. An accused can cite “mental disease or defect” as a partial defense. However, in such cases, it must be proven that the person had no intention of committing a crime. In their petition to the Supreme Court, his attorneys argued that he knew he was shooting people, but that he was so disturbed at the time that he could not stop himself. “A favorable decision would make it clear that the Constitution requires that a defendant be able to understand the difference between right and wrong before being found guilty, and, in cases like Mr. Kahler’s, put to death,” his defense attorney, Meryle Carver-Allmond, told the Capital-Journal. “We’re hopeful that, in taking Mr. Kahler’s case, the United States Supreme Court has indicated a desire to find that the Constitution requires better of us in our treatment of mentally ill defendants.” The Topeka Capital-Journal.

Seniors who move into and live in long-term care facilities are at increased risk of suicide, according to reporting by the PBS NewsHour and Kaiser Health News. The report focused on the story of Roland K. Tiedemann, a senior who, in his younger days, was an outdoorsman, traveled around the world, and served as a surrogate dad to his granddaughter. When his health deteriorated, he moved to a long-term care facility with his wife, who later was diagnosed with dementia. At age 89, Mr. Tiedemann, who was facing a third move into a facility that would take Medicaid, “locked his door ... and jumped to his death from his fourth floor window,” the report said. The death of Mr. Tiedemann led Julie A. Rickard, PhD, to start asking questions at his facility and working with other centers to identify the signs of depression. A few years earlier, after a “rash of suicides, mostly among young people,” Dr. Rickard had started developing the Suicide Prevention Coalition of North Central Washington. After looking into policies at long-term care facilities, Dr. Rickard began recommending changes that she hoped would prove protective. For example, in some cases, residents are “paired with people who are not adjusting well to those who are.” It is also important for families to ask whether suicide prevention and mental health protocols are in place at long-term care facilities. Ultimately, Dr. Rickard and Jane Davis – Mr. Tiedemann’s daughter – agree that stigma needs to be reduced so that residents feel free to talk their depression and anxiety. PBS NewsHour.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

More and more people are using mental health apps, and a new study has found that few of those apps have a sound scientific basis for their claims. The researchers scoured iTunes and Google Play for 1,435 mental health apps. These were whittled to 73 of the most popular. The apps addressed common mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, as well as some less common illnesses, such as schizophrenia. Of the 73 apps, 47 claimed to be able to effectively diagnose the target condition, improve the user symptoms or mood, and bolster self-management. In about 40% of cases, the app site trotted out scientific language to buttress claims of effectiveness. However, when the researchers took a rigorous look at the science behind the apps, only one was based on a published study. Moreover, for about one-third of the apps, no supporting scientific at all could be found. Science speak did not translate into evidence-based science. The annual market for self-improvement products and apps, including those focusing on mental health, is $10 billion in the United States. Forbes.

Police officers trained in helping people with mental health problems can get positive results, a newspaper report shows. That’s what happened when Logan Elliott called Clive, Iowa, police to report that his fiancé had threatened suicide – and had had a prior attempt, according to the Des Moines Register. Mr. Elliott’s fiancé, Codii Lewis, was in a “depressive state,” was suffering from the loss of his dog, and was troubled by uncertainty regarding the cost of a procedure undertaken to confirm his gender as a transgender man; as a result, Mr. Lewis climbed onto a ledge. He streamed video of his encounter with the police on Facebook Live, and eventually, after kicking one of the officers, he was subdued and taken into custody. The training that Clive officers receive “calls for less aggressive behavior by police,” the article said. “It emphasizes de-escalation, especially when the subject may be suicidal. It doesn’t expect officers to be therapists or handle all mental health situations, but it does ask that they handle mental health situations differently” from the way they might handle other calls. People with mental illness that is untreated are 16 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement than are people without mental illness. Des Moines Register.

 

An exhibit now running at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H., is intended to put a human face on mental illness. The 99 Faces Project: Portraits Without Labels by Boston-area artist Lynda Michaud Cutrell presents photos of people with serious mental illnesses and those who love them, the New Hampshire Union Leader reported. Portraits were taken with the help of three photographers nationwide. The long list was trimmed to 99 that mirror the ethnic makeup of the U.S. population. The roster of individuals includes 33 with schizophrenia and 33 with bipolar disorder. The remaining 33 are “chronically normal” according to Ms. Cutrell. The viewer can’t tell the difference between the mentally affected individuals and those who are not; they look like people one encounters every day. And that’s the point. Marianne Barthel, director of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Arts Program, hopes the exhibit leads to conversations that help “normalize mental health in our society, to recognize that the people you’re looking at in these images could be you or your family member,” the article said. Ms. Barthel also hopes that the exhibit, which runs until September, will help reduce the stigma around mental illness by showing that “there are people who are living successful lives with these illnesses.” One of the 99 faces is that of actress Glenn Close, who cofounded the organization Bring Change To Mind in 2010 after her sister was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and her nephew with schizoaffective disorder. New Hampshire Union Leader.

Deliberation about the use of the death penalty for a prisoner in Kansas has implications for those with mental illness who commit crimes. As the Topeka Capital-Journal reported, James Kahler was convicted of murdering his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Two years later, he was sentenced to death, and several years later, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld that conviction. His guilt is not in question. What is at issue is his impairment. His lawyers had earlier argued that severe depression had made his grip on reality tenuous and that he could not be executed. Now comes the news that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule whether the decision by the state of Kansas to abolish insanity as a defense was constitutional under the 8th and 14th amendments. The high court’s ruling will have profound implications for people with mental illness. In addition to those in Kansas, under state laws in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Utah, “a traditional insanity defense in which a person must understand the difference between right and wrong before being found guilty of a crime isn’t allowed,” the report said. An accused can cite “mental disease or defect” as a partial defense. However, in such cases, it must be proven that the person had no intention of committing a crime. In their petition to the Supreme Court, his attorneys argued that he knew he was shooting people, but that he was so disturbed at the time that he could not stop himself. “A favorable decision would make it clear that the Constitution requires that a defendant be able to understand the difference between right and wrong before being found guilty, and, in cases like Mr. Kahler’s, put to death,” his defense attorney, Meryle Carver-Allmond, told the Capital-Journal. “We’re hopeful that, in taking Mr. Kahler’s case, the United States Supreme Court has indicated a desire to find that the Constitution requires better of us in our treatment of mentally ill defendants.” The Topeka Capital-Journal.

 

A patient in Seattle reported drinking alcohol on only two occasions during the year: when it rains – and when it doesn’t.

Various benefits of humor have been studied as part of the treatment modality. Humor can be a powerful resource, but it remains a complex process, and its proper use in clinical practice requires careful consideration. Despite having demonstrated the ability to relieve stress in patients and among medical professionals,¹ humor has not gained widespread acceptance.

Humor has been shown to help build relationships, and establish trust and support for favorable health outcomes. It increases patients’ satisfaction, decreases medical malpractice claims, and has the potential to reduce cultural differences and hierarchy between patients and health care practitioners.² The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education values interpersonal and communication skills as being among the core competencies to be imparted to physicians in training.

Currently, there is no standard methodology for using humor in practice, as each clinical setting and circumstance can vary widely. Whichever setting you find yourself in, however, you might keep in mind certain strategies for incorporating humor into your daily practice.^1-3

Explore the benefits of humor in your clinical practice

Consider humor an integral part of your professionalism. Initiate it where you have assessed it is appropriate.

Understand your audience

Assess your patients’ capability of understanding or appreciating your humor. Do not force it on patients. Be respectful of their perspectives and mindful of cultural differences.

Reciprocate humor

If patients take the humor route to lighten what might be a tense encounter, respond to their attempt and join them in bringing levity into the mix.

Use humor to support patients

Humor can take many forms. It can be subtle and does not always require a punchline. Patients may use it to express concerns or even fear. Health care providers can use it as support and to demonstrate caring, reflecting anxieties likely displayed or revealed by patients.

Avoid certain forms of humor

Avoid using self-disparaging or gallows humor. Humor between health care providers and patients should never be sarcastic, ethnic, or sexist.

Pay attention to how your patients use humor

Explore the possible meanings of your patients’ attempts at humor and what concerns they might be seeking to express. Use your findings to discuss deeper issues.

Incorporate humor into your teaching

Students, too, can benefit from the therapeutic potential of humor. Use humor to dispel or lessen your students’ fears or anxieties. It can help in the learning process and memory. Creating a cheery ambience can help lessen nervousness, ease coping, and reduce burnout.

References

1. South Med J. 2003 Dec;96(12):1257-61.

2. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 Mar-Apr;31(2):270-8.

3. Health Expect. 2014 Jun;17(3):332-44.
 

Dr. Lamba is a psychiatrist and medical director at Bayridge Hospital in Lynn, Mass. Dr. Rana is assistant professor of pediatrics at Boston University.

 

A patient in Seattle reported drinking alcohol on only two occasions during the year: when it rains – and when it doesn’t.

Various benefits of humor have been studied as part of the treatment modality. Humor can be a powerful resource, but it remains a complex process, and its proper use in clinical practice requires careful consideration. Despite having demonstrated the ability to relieve stress in patients and among medical professionals,¹ humor has not gained widespread acceptance.

Humor has been shown to help build relationships, and establish trust and support for favorable health outcomes. It increases patients’ satisfaction, decreases medical malpractice claims, and has the potential to reduce cultural differences and hierarchy between patients and health care practitioners.² The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education values interpersonal and communication skills as being among the core competencies to be imparted to physicians in training.

Currently, there is no standard methodology for using humor in practice, as each clinical setting and circumstance can vary widely. Whichever setting you find yourself in, however, you might keep in mind certain strategies for incorporating humor into your daily practice.^1-3

Explore the benefits of humor in your clinical practice

Consider humor an integral part of your professionalism. Initiate it where you have assessed it is appropriate.

Understand your audience

Assess your patients’ capability of understanding or appreciating your humor. Do not force it on patients. Be respectful of their perspectives and mindful of cultural differences.

Reciprocate humor

If patients take the humor route to lighten what might be a tense encounter, respond to their attempt and join them in bringing levity into the mix.

Use humor to support patients

Humor can take many forms. It can be subtle and does not always require a punchline. Patients may use it to express concerns or even fear. Health care providers can use it as support and to demonstrate caring, reflecting anxieties likely displayed or revealed by patients.

Avoid certain forms of humor

Avoid using self-disparaging or gallows humor. Humor between health care providers and patients should never be sarcastic, ethnic, or sexist.

Pay attention to how your patients use humor

Explore the possible meanings of your patients’ attempts at humor and what concerns they might be seeking to express. Use your findings to discuss deeper issues.

Incorporate humor into your teaching

Students, too, can benefit from the therapeutic potential of humor. Use humor to dispel or lessen your students’ fears or anxieties. It can help in the learning process and memory. Creating a cheery ambience can help lessen nervousness, ease coping, and reduce burnout.

References

1. South Med J. 2003 Dec;96(12):1257-61.

2. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 Mar-Apr;31(2):270-8.

3. Health Expect. 2014 Jun;17(3):332-44.
 

Dr. Lamba is a psychiatrist and medical director at Bayridge Hospital in Lynn, Mass. Dr. Rana is assistant professor of pediatrics at Boston University.

 

A patient in Seattle reported drinking alcohol on only two occasions during the year: when it rains – and when it doesn’t.

Various benefits of humor have been studied as part of the treatment modality. Humor can be a powerful resource, but it remains a complex process, and its proper use in clinical practice requires careful consideration. Despite having demonstrated the ability to relieve stress in patients and among medical professionals,¹ humor has not gained widespread acceptance.

Humor has been shown to help build relationships, and establish trust and support for favorable health outcomes. It increases patients’ satisfaction, decreases medical malpractice claims, and has the potential to reduce cultural differences and hierarchy between patients and health care practitioners.² The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education values interpersonal and communication skills as being among the core competencies to be imparted to physicians in training.

Currently, there is no standard methodology for using humor in practice, as each clinical setting and circumstance can vary widely. Whichever setting you find yourself in, however, you might keep in mind certain strategies for incorporating humor into your daily practice.^1-3

Explore the benefits of humor in your clinical practice

Consider humor an integral part of your professionalism. Initiate it where you have assessed it is appropriate.

Understand your audience

Assess your patients’ capability of understanding or appreciating your humor. Do not force it on patients. Be respectful of their perspectives and mindful of cultural differences.

Reciprocate humor

If patients take the humor route to lighten what might be a tense encounter, respond to their attempt and join them in bringing levity into the mix.

Use humor to support patients

Humor can take many forms. It can be subtle and does not always require a punchline. Patients may use it to express concerns or even fear. Health care providers can use it as support and to demonstrate caring, reflecting anxieties likely displayed or revealed by patients.

Avoid certain forms of humor

Avoid using self-disparaging or gallows humor. Humor between health care providers and patients should never be sarcastic, ethnic, or sexist.

Pay attention to how your patients use humor

Explore the possible meanings of your patients’ attempts at humor and what concerns they might be seeking to express. Use your findings to discuss deeper issues.

Incorporate humor into your teaching

Students, too, can benefit from the therapeutic potential of humor. Use humor to dispel or lessen your students’ fears or anxieties. It can help in the learning process and memory. Creating a cheery ambience can help lessen nervousness, ease coping, and reduce burnout.

References

1. South Med J. 2003 Dec;96(12):1257-61.

2. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 Mar-Apr;31(2):270-8.

3. Health Expect. 2014 Jun;17(3):332-44.
 

Dr. Lamba is a psychiatrist and medical director at Bayridge Hospital in Lynn, Mass. Dr. Rana is assistant professor of pediatrics at Boston University.

 

“You are the best doctor I ever had.” These were the words of my patient at our final session. Is it possible to love a patient and to show it? I kissed Rosa on the cheek and embraced her as she left my office. And I said, “It is important to show the love.”

“This may be the last time I come to your office,” she said. When Rosa came through the door at the beginning of the session, I was taken aback. She had lost weight and was using a walker; her face was drawn and sallow. I knew she had a recent diagnosis of liver cancer and had been hospitalized. She told me: “I have 3 months to live.” The cancer was inoperable.

She sat in a chair close to me, and we reminisced about 20 years as doctor and patient. She also talked about the stents in her liver; when they blocked, the pain resulted in a revisit to the emergency department. She had help from home health aides for several hours a day. Rosa’s sister arrived from Puerto Rico to be here “for as long as it takes.”

When she started therapy, Rosa was a single mother who lived in the projects with her adolescent son, Wesley. Her husband had died of AIDS. Unemployed and depressed, she told me that an uncle had sexually abused her when she was a child. Over the years, she looked to me for support: When her son, Wesley, got shot in the leg on a basketball court; when Wesley married a woman who shunned her; when her nephew who stayed with her got arrested for selling drugs and she lost her apartment as a result. Rosa remained in New York, displaced and struggling to find a reasonable home. After Wesley married, he moved with his family to rural Pennsylvania.

Whenever Rosa called to set up a therapy session, we talked about her problems. I prescribed medication for her, and I directed her to proper medical care. Often, I encouraged her to improve her diet, lose weight, and exercise – but to no avail. Her health deteriorated. She had cardiac surgery, heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obesity. All these illnesses became her concern. She attended clinics at the hospital.

Now she told me that she would miss her son and would not see her two young grandchildren grow up. Rosa took Wesley to a funeral home to select a coffin and a headstone. It was tough for both of them, but she wanted to spare Wesley the trouble of doing it alone. She reflected, “It was like hitting a concrete wall” when she discovered her terminal diagnosis.

Rosa is facing pain, saying goodbye, and death. During her meeting, her ordeal made me cry, but I tried to contain it. I have been her doctor for so long, not a member of her family, not a friend. Yet I love her.


“Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.”

– Abraham Joshua Heschel

Dr. Cohen is in private practice and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical Center of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and psychiatric consultant at the Hospital for Special Surgery, also in New York. She made changes to the patient’s story to protect confidentiality.

 

“You are the best doctor I ever had.” These were the words of my patient at our final session. Is it possible to love a patient and to show it? I kissed Rosa on the cheek and embraced her as she left my office. And I said, “It is important to show the love.”

“This may be the last time I come to your office,” she said. When Rosa came through the door at the beginning of the session, I was taken aback. She had lost weight and was using a walker; her face was drawn and sallow. I knew she had a recent diagnosis of liver cancer and had been hospitalized. She told me: “I have 3 months to live.” The cancer was inoperable.

She sat in a chair close to me, and we reminisced about 20 years as doctor and patient. She also talked about the stents in her liver; when they blocked, the pain resulted in a revisit to the emergency department. She had help from home health aides for several hours a day. Rosa’s sister arrived from Puerto Rico to be here “for as long as it takes.”

When she started therapy, Rosa was a single mother who lived in the projects with her adolescent son, Wesley. Her husband had died of AIDS. Unemployed and depressed, she told me that an uncle had sexually abused her when she was a child. Over the years, she looked to me for support: When her son, Wesley, got shot in the leg on a basketball court; when Wesley married a woman who shunned her; when her nephew who stayed with her got arrested for selling drugs and she lost her apartment as a result. Rosa remained in New York, displaced and struggling to find a reasonable home. After Wesley married, he moved with his family to rural Pennsylvania.

Whenever Rosa called to set up a therapy session, we talked about her problems. I prescribed medication for her, and I directed her to proper medical care. Often, I encouraged her to improve her diet, lose weight, and exercise – but to no avail. Her health deteriorated. She had cardiac surgery, heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obesity. All these illnesses became her concern. She attended clinics at the hospital.

Now she told me that she would miss her son and would not see her two young grandchildren grow up. Rosa took Wesley to a funeral home to select a coffin and a headstone. It was tough for both of them, but she wanted to spare Wesley the trouble of doing it alone. She reflected, “It was like hitting a concrete wall” when she discovered her terminal diagnosis.

Rosa is facing pain, saying goodbye, and death. During her meeting, her ordeal made me cry, but I tried to contain it. I have been her doctor for so long, not a member of her family, not a friend. Yet I love her.


“Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.”

– Abraham Joshua Heschel

Dr. Cohen is in private practice and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical Center of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and psychiatric consultant at the Hospital for Special Surgery, also in New York. She made changes to the patient’s story to protect confidentiality.

 

“You are the best doctor I ever had.” These were the words of my patient at our final session. Is it possible to love a patient and to show it? I kissed Rosa on the cheek and embraced her as she left my office. And I said, “It is important to show the love.”

“This may be the last time I come to your office,” she said. When Rosa came through the door at the beginning of the session, I was taken aback. She had lost weight and was using a walker; her face was drawn and sallow. I knew she had a recent diagnosis of liver cancer and had been hospitalized. She told me: “I have 3 months to live.” The cancer was inoperable.

She sat in a chair close to me, and we reminisced about 20 years as doctor and patient. She also talked about the stents in her liver; when they blocked, the pain resulted in a revisit to the emergency department. She had help from home health aides for several hours a day. Rosa’s sister arrived from Puerto Rico to be here “for as long as it takes.”

When she started therapy, Rosa was a single mother who lived in the projects with her adolescent son, Wesley. Her husband had died of AIDS. Unemployed and depressed, she told me that an uncle had sexually abused her when she was a child. Over the years, she looked to me for support: When her son, Wesley, got shot in the leg on a basketball court; when Wesley married a woman who shunned her; when her nephew who stayed with her got arrested for selling drugs and she lost her apartment as a result. Rosa remained in New York, displaced and struggling to find a reasonable home. After Wesley married, he moved with his family to rural Pennsylvania.

Whenever Rosa called to set up a therapy session, we talked about her problems. I prescribed medication for her, and I directed her to proper medical care. Often, I encouraged her to improve her diet, lose weight, and exercise – but to no avail. Her health deteriorated. She had cardiac surgery, heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obesity. All these illnesses became her concern. She attended clinics at the hospital.

Now she told me that she would miss her son and would not see her two young grandchildren grow up. Rosa took Wesley to a funeral home to select a coffin and a headstone. It was tough for both of them, but she wanted to spare Wesley the trouble of doing it alone. She reflected, “It was like hitting a concrete wall” when she discovered her terminal diagnosis.

Rosa is facing pain, saying goodbye, and death. During her meeting, her ordeal made me cry, but I tried to contain it. I have been her doctor for so long, not a member of her family, not a friend. Yet I love her.


“Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.”

– Abraham Joshua Heschel

Dr. Cohen is in private practice and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical Center of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and psychiatric consultant at the Hospital for Special Surgery, also in New York. She made changes to the patient’s story to protect confidentiality.

Recently, two studies were published addressing the potential association of childhood cancer and assisted reproductive technology. For more than a decade and a half, it has been acknowledged that ART is associated with increased concern both with structural birth defects, as well as imprinting disorders. As both of these issues have been linked to greater cancer risk in children, it is important to decipher the impact of ART on childhood cancer risk.

Published online April 1 in JAMA Pediatrics, the study, “Association of in vitro fertilization [IVF] with childhood cancer in the United States,”¹ by LG Spector et al. looked retrospectively at birth and cancer registries in 14 states with 8 years of data on 275,686 children were conceived via ART through 2013, who were compared with 2,266,847 children selected randomly.

The overall cancer rate per 1,000,000 person-years was low in both groups: 252 for the IVF group and 193 for the control group, for an overall hazard risk of 1.17. Of note, the rate of hepatic tumors was higher among the IVF group than the non-IVF group (18 vs. 5.7; hazard ratio, 2.46). There appeared to be no association with specific IVF treatments, whether children were conceived by donor egg vs. autologous egg; frozen embryos vs. fresh embryos; use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) vs. none; assisted hatching vs. none; and day-3 vs. day-5 transfer. The researchers concluded that the “increased rate of embryonal cancers, particularly hepatic tumors, that could not be attributed to IVF rather than to underlying infertility.”

This first and largest cohort study of association between IVF and the risk of childhood cancer ever published showed little evidence of excess risk of most cancers, including more common cancers such as leukemia.

The authors did note limitations in their study. Mothers who conceived via IVF were more likely to be white, non-Hispanic, more educated, and older. Could this patient population undergoing ART be at greater risk of producing offspring with cancer concerns? If that were the case – and not great risk of childhood cancer in ART, per se – one therefore would extrapolate that couples undergoing ART vs. alternative infertility treatment should not show a treatment-biased risk (i.e., ART vs. non-ART).

This was demonstrated recently in the study, “Risk of cancer in children and young adults conceived by assisted reproductive technology.”² This Dutch historical cohort study with prospective follow-up of a median 21 years evaluated 47,690 live-born children, of which 24,269 were ART conceived, 13,761 naturally conceived, and 9,660 conceived naturally or with fertility drugs but not by ART.

Overall, cancer risk was not increased in ART-conceived children, compared with naturally conceived subfertile women or even the general population. A nonsignificant increased risk was observed in children conceived by ICSI or cryopreservation.

On the basis of these two studies, there appears to be no significant increased risk of cancer in children conceived through fertility treatment, including ART.

Although these studies do not support the conclusion reached by a 2013 meta-analysis of 9 studies that specifically looked at ART and 16 other studies that looked at other types of medically assisted reproduction (such medically assisted reproduction as reproduction achieved through ovulation induction; controlled ovarian stimulation; ovulation triggering; intrauterine, intracervical, or intravaginal insemination) which reported a significant increased risk of overall cancers (1.33), including leukemia, CNS cancer, and neuroblastoma,³ they do agree more closely with two prospective studies conducted in the United Kingdom and Nordic countries.

In the U.K. study,⁴ there was no overall increased risk of cancer associated with ART, but two types of cancer were noted to be higher in the ART-conceived group – hepatoblastoma (3.27 risk) and rhabdomyosarcoma (2.62 risk) – but the absolute risk of these two types of cancer was small in this 17-year study of 106,013 children. This, of course, would be consistent with the JAMA Pediatrics study. In the Nordic study,⁵ similar to the Dutch Study, IVF was not associated with a significant increased risk of cancer (1.08). The Nordic study included 91,796 children born of ART-assisted pregnancies, compared with 358,419 children born after spontaneous conceptions.

The evidence so far shows that there appears to be no significant increased risk of cancer overall associated with fertility treatments, including IVF.
 

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He also is a member of Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. Dr. Miller disclosed that he is president of the Advanced IVF Institute in Park Ridge and Naperville, Ill.

References

1. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0392.

2. Hum Reprod. 2019 Apr 1;34(4):740-50.

3. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.03.017.

4. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 7;369(19):1819-27.

5. Hum Reprod. 2014 Sep;29(9):2050-7.

Recently, two studies were published addressing the potential association of childhood cancer and assisted reproductive technology. For more than a decade and a half, it has been acknowledged that ART is associated with increased concern both with structural birth defects, as well as imprinting disorders. As both of these issues have been linked to greater cancer risk in children, it is important to decipher the impact of ART on childhood cancer risk.

Published online April 1 in JAMA Pediatrics, the study, “Association of in vitro fertilization [IVF] with childhood cancer in the United States,”¹ by LG Spector et al. looked retrospectively at birth and cancer registries in 14 states with 8 years of data on 275,686 children were conceived via ART through 2013, who were compared with 2,266,847 children selected randomly.

The overall cancer rate per 1,000,000 person-years was low in both groups: 252 for the IVF group and 193 for the control group, for an overall hazard risk of 1.17. Of note, the rate of hepatic tumors was higher among the IVF group than the non-IVF group (18 vs. 5.7; hazard ratio, 2.46). There appeared to be no association with specific IVF treatments, whether children were conceived by donor egg vs. autologous egg; frozen embryos vs. fresh embryos; use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) vs. none; assisted hatching vs. none; and day-3 vs. day-5 transfer. The researchers concluded that the “increased rate of embryonal cancers, particularly hepatic tumors, that could not be attributed to IVF rather than to underlying infertility.”

This first and largest cohort study of association between IVF and the risk of childhood cancer ever published showed little evidence of excess risk of most cancers, including more common cancers such as leukemia.

The authors did note limitations in their study. Mothers who conceived via IVF were more likely to be white, non-Hispanic, more educated, and older. Could this patient population undergoing ART be at greater risk of producing offspring with cancer concerns? If that were the case – and not great risk of childhood cancer in ART, per se – one therefore would extrapolate that couples undergoing ART vs. alternative infertility treatment should not show a treatment-biased risk (i.e., ART vs. non-ART).

This was demonstrated recently in the study, “Risk of cancer in children and young adults conceived by assisted reproductive technology.”² This Dutch historical cohort study with prospective follow-up of a median 21 years evaluated 47,690 live-born children, of which 24,269 were ART conceived, 13,761 naturally conceived, and 9,660 conceived naturally or with fertility drugs but not by ART.

Overall, cancer risk was not increased in ART-conceived children, compared with naturally conceived subfertile women or even the general population. A nonsignificant increased risk was observed in children conceived by ICSI or cryopreservation.

On the basis of these two studies, there appears to be no significant increased risk of cancer in children conceived through fertility treatment, including ART.

Although these studies do not support the conclusion reached by a 2013 meta-analysis of 9 studies that specifically looked at ART and 16 other studies that looked at other types of medically assisted reproduction (such medically assisted reproduction as reproduction achieved through ovulation induction; controlled ovarian stimulation; ovulation triggering; intrauterine, intracervical, or intravaginal insemination) which reported a significant increased risk of overall cancers (1.33), including leukemia, CNS cancer, and neuroblastoma,³ they do agree more closely with two prospective studies conducted in the United Kingdom and Nordic countries.

In the U.K. study,⁴ there was no overall increased risk of cancer associated with ART, but two types of cancer were noted to be higher in the ART-conceived group – hepatoblastoma (3.27 risk) and rhabdomyosarcoma (2.62 risk) – but the absolute risk of these two types of cancer was small in this 17-year study of 106,013 children. This, of course, would be consistent with the JAMA Pediatrics study. In the Nordic study,⁵ similar to the Dutch Study, IVF was not associated with a significant increased risk of cancer (1.08). The Nordic study included 91,796 children born of ART-assisted pregnancies, compared with 358,419 children born after spontaneous conceptions.

The evidence so far shows that there appears to be no significant increased risk of cancer overall associated with fertility treatments, including IVF.
 

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He also is a member of Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. Dr. Miller disclosed that he is president of the Advanced IVF Institute in Park Ridge and Naperville, Ill.

References

1. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0392.

2. Hum Reprod. 2019 Apr 1;34(4):740-50.

3. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.03.017.

4. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 7;369(19):1819-27.

5. Hum Reprod. 2014 Sep;29(9):2050-7.

Recently, two studies were published addressing the potential association of childhood cancer and assisted reproductive technology. For more than a decade and a half, it has been acknowledged that ART is associated with increased concern both with structural birth defects, as well as imprinting disorders. As both of these issues have been linked to greater cancer risk in children, it is important to decipher the impact of ART on childhood cancer risk.

Published online April 1 in JAMA Pediatrics, the study, “Association of in vitro fertilization [IVF] with childhood cancer in the United States,”¹ by LG Spector et al. looked retrospectively at birth and cancer registries in 14 states with 8 years of data on 275,686 children were conceived via ART through 2013, who were compared with 2,266,847 children selected randomly.

The overall cancer rate per 1,000,000 person-years was low in both groups: 252 for the IVF group and 193 for the control group, for an overall hazard risk of 1.17. Of note, the rate of hepatic tumors was higher among the IVF group than the non-IVF group (18 vs. 5.7; hazard ratio, 2.46). There appeared to be no association with specific IVF treatments, whether children were conceived by donor egg vs. autologous egg; frozen embryos vs. fresh embryos; use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) vs. none; assisted hatching vs. none; and day-3 vs. day-5 transfer. The researchers concluded that the “increased rate of embryonal cancers, particularly hepatic tumors, that could not be attributed to IVF rather than to underlying infertility.”

This first and largest cohort study of association between IVF and the risk of childhood cancer ever published showed little evidence of excess risk of most cancers, including more common cancers such as leukemia.

The authors did note limitations in their study. Mothers who conceived via IVF were more likely to be white, non-Hispanic, more educated, and older. Could this patient population undergoing ART be at greater risk of producing offspring with cancer concerns? If that were the case – and not great risk of childhood cancer in ART, per se – one therefore would extrapolate that couples undergoing ART vs. alternative infertility treatment should not show a treatment-biased risk (i.e., ART vs. non-ART).

This was demonstrated recently in the study, “Risk of cancer in children and young adults conceived by assisted reproductive technology.”² This Dutch historical cohort study with prospective follow-up of a median 21 years evaluated 47,690 live-born children, of which 24,269 were ART conceived, 13,761 naturally conceived, and 9,660 conceived naturally or with fertility drugs but not by ART.

Overall, cancer risk was not increased in ART-conceived children, compared with naturally conceived subfertile women or even the general population. A nonsignificant increased risk was observed in children conceived by ICSI or cryopreservation.

On the basis of these two studies, there appears to be no significant increased risk of cancer in children conceived through fertility treatment, including ART.

Although these studies do not support the conclusion reached by a 2013 meta-analysis of 9 studies that specifically looked at ART and 16 other studies that looked at other types of medically assisted reproduction (such medically assisted reproduction as reproduction achieved through ovulation induction; controlled ovarian stimulation; ovulation triggering; intrauterine, intracervical, or intravaginal insemination) which reported a significant increased risk of overall cancers (1.33), including leukemia, CNS cancer, and neuroblastoma,³ they do agree more closely with two prospective studies conducted in the United Kingdom and Nordic countries.

In the U.K. study,⁴ there was no overall increased risk of cancer associated with ART, but two types of cancer were noted to be higher in the ART-conceived group – hepatoblastoma (3.27 risk) and rhabdomyosarcoma (2.62 risk) – but the absolute risk of these two types of cancer was small in this 17-year study of 106,013 children. This, of course, would be consistent with the JAMA Pediatrics study. In the Nordic study,⁵ similar to the Dutch Study, IVF was not associated with a significant increased risk of cancer (1.08). The Nordic study included 91,796 children born of ART-assisted pregnancies, compared with 358,419 children born after spontaneous conceptions.

The evidence so far shows that there appears to be no significant increased risk of cancer overall associated with fertility treatments, including IVF.
 

Dr. Miller is a clinical associate professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and past president of the AAGL. He is a reproductive endocrinologist and minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon in metropolitan Chicago and the director of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill. He also is a member of Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. Dr. Miller disclosed that he is president of the Advanced IVF Institute in Park Ridge and Naperville, Ill.

References

1. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0392.

2. Hum Reprod. 2019 Apr 1;34(4):740-50.

3. Fertil Steril. 2013 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.03.017.

4. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 7;369(19):1819-27.

5. Hum Reprod. 2014 Sep;29(9):2050-7.