Opinion

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

Case: “Where’s my mommy?”

A 13-year-old girl “D” appeared lifeless in her hospital bed, swallowed by tubes, gauze, and crisp white sheets. She seemed fragile next to the giant machines beeping all around her, as they churned and groaned to keep her alive. She was in the pediatric intensive care unit, a place she had only seen once or twice on TV. Her sleeping mother lay next to her in an uncomfortable-looking recliner chair, curled up in a ball. She abruptly woke up when I walked into the room, doing her best to wipe away 5 days’ worth of worry and sadness from her exhausted face. She saw “Child Psychiatrist” written on my hospital badge, desperately searching my face for answers or a sign of hope.

Her daughter – a straight-A middle school student who loved Taylor Swift and soccer – had overdosed on Tylenol after discovering that she did not make the cheerleading team. I reported that her daughter’s liver enzymes were finally trending down and that she would likely not require a liver transplant. She would survive. As tears welled up in this mother’s eyes, I heard a faint whisper from across the room. “Where’s my mommy?” D was awake and frantically searching the room for her mother, someone who could soothe her in this living nightmare. As the two embraced, I felt tears well up in my eyes as I couldn’t help but think of my own 3-year-old daughter at home. How could I protect her from the sadness and despair that this little girl was feeling? How can we collectively protect every little girl from wanting to end their life?

CDC data: Teen girls need help now

The latest biennial Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered in the fall of 2021, resulted in alarming data showing that mental health has worsened for all adolescents, but especially for girls. The survey was administered to more than 17,000 students in 152 public and private schools throughout the United States, showing that “America’s teen girls are engulfed in a growing wave of sadness, violence, and trauma.”¹ In particular, rates of sadness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and mental health crisis ED visits among girls are the highest reported in a decade. Nearly 60% of girls felt persistent sadness or hopelessness during the past year, double the rate of boys. More than 25% of girls made a suicide plan; this percentage increased 60% over the past 10 years. Alarmingly, ED visits for suicide attempts for girls increased more than 50% in the past 2 years alone.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, experts were sounding the alarm on the growing rates of anxiety and depression in U.S. youth. The pandemic-driven isolation, lack of social connection, and missing of major milestones did not help the situation and only deepened the cracks in a faulty mental health care system. Further, civil unrest and social upheaval in the United States felt – and continues to feel – chaotic and unpredictable. For teens, the current cultural climate represents their not-too-distant future as adults, causing worry and anxiety.

In addition to securing their futures through performance in school and extracurricular activities, teenagers are forming their identities. Establishing a personal identity is a difficult task for all teens, though teenage girls face uniquely difficult challenges in our current society. In particular, teenage girls are expected to conform their behaviors to fit societal expectations that may clash with their desires and self-conceptualization. This conflict is further complicated by heightened beauty standards, online hate and competition, academic pressure, and self-doubt. CDC data show that girls experience sexual harassment and cyberbullying at roughly twice the rate of their male counterparts. Girls also experience higher levels of sexual violence and bullying. Alarmingly, 14% of girls reported being forced to have sex at some point in their lives. The sad truth is that, for every 10 teenage girls you know, at least one of them, and probably more, has likely been raped.
 

A call to action for providers

As providers, what can we do about these alarming statistics? It’s easy to become overwhelmed by data on a national level. However, regardless of our current clinical practice situation, we cannot lose sight of the humanity behind these numbers. Five extra minutes of truly listening to our patients, normalizing conversations about mental health, and looking for mental health warning signs (that is, increased isolation, declining function in school, maladaptive coping skills such as self-injurious behavior or substance use) can mean the difference between life and death.

As pediatric providers, formally screening for suicide risk is critical. Specifically, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all youth aged 12 years or older be screened for suicide risk.² In addition to asking families to reduce access to lethal means, it is important to utilize suicide-specific screeners to prevent suicide attempts and deaths in the pediatric community. Pediatric providers must feel prepared to counsel patients and families on suicide prevention and, if this skill set is underdeveloped, appropriate referrals and support must be provided.

At the same time, it is important to note the larger context. This national tragedy has been long-standing and further accelerated by the social isolation and stress of the pandemic. Madigan and colleagues recently showed that the lack of a social outlet resulting from COVID-19 caused an increase in screen time among all children.³ As a result, many teen girls turned to social media to recreate these social connections online.⁴ This dependence on social media for validation has contributed to increased rates of depression by intensifying unrealistic body standards, comparisons, and competition among peers.⁵ However, recent pediatric partnership programs have improved mental health access, reduced ED visits, and increased primary care physician’s comfort with managing mental health concerns.⁶ These programs are called Child Psychiatry Access Programs (CPAPs) and utilize a collaborative care model through which primary care clinicians consult with child and adolescent psychiatrists. CPAPs, while not the entire solution, offer a major step in the right direction toward tackling this mental health crisis in a sustainable, collaborative, and effective way.

As students return to in-person learning, connectedness at school is a powerful protective factor against depression and anxiety. We must infuse resources and support into our schools and teachers, as they stand on the front lines for our children. Specifically, bolstering schools with school counselors and appropriate mental health support staff will help rescue teachers from burnout while also explicitly identifying mental health care as a priority. Finally, modeling positive behavior for families and identifying safe adults at school can help at-risk youth feel more connected. To achieve meaningful improvement in children’s mental health, it is crucial to collaboratively remodel broken systems to ensure that all children are supported early, effectively, and equitably.

Dr. Richards is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, program director of the child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship, and associate medical director of the perinatal program at the UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior in Los Angeles.
 

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. YRBSS Data Summary & Trends. 2023 Feb 13. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/yrbs_data_summary_and_trends.htm

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Screening for Suicide Risk in Clinical Practice. 2023 Feb 22. https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/blueprint-for-youth-suicide-prevention/strategies-for-clinical-settings-for-youth-suicide-prevention/screening-for-suicide-risk-in-clinical-practice/

3. Madigan S et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1188-98. doi: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2022.4116

4. Pew Research Center. Teens, Social Media and Technology 2022. 2022 Aug 10. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

5. Hunt MG et al. J Social Clin Psychology. 2018;37(10):751-68. doi: 10.1521/JSCP.2018.37.10.751

6. Godoy L et al. J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.11.009.

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

I imagine I am not alone when I tell you that my blood pressure rises every time I receive an email from CoverMyMeds, or worse, a phone call from a patient to tell me the pharmacist says I need to call their insurance company to get a medication authorized. Prior authorizations (PAs) are the bane of every physician’s existence.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and insurers determine what treatment patients may have without regulation, accountability, liability, or transparency. They ask providers to jump through hoops, and no one oversees the placement of these hoops. The process puts patients at risk and sucks the joy from the practice of medicine.

In fall 2021, the legislative committee of the Maryland Psychiatric Society, with the help of Kathy Orellana and Tim Clement from the American Psychiatric Association, drafted a bill to modify the use of PAs. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Robert Herman, MD, who helped draft the initial legislation, was delighted when he learned that MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, had taken the proposed legislation and expanded it. “It was everything we wished for and more,” Dr. Herman said.

During this year’s legislative session, House Bill 305/Senate Bill 308, Health Insurance – Utilization Review – Revisions, was sponsored by 19 delegates and two senators. Fifty medical associations, including dentists and physical therapists, endorsed the bill. Many people, including Dr. Herman, testified before the Health and Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16.

Delegate Kenneth Kerr introduced the legislation to the committee.

“Before I begin, let me make two points. First, the bill does not do away with prior authorization or other utilization review techniques; rather, it tries to make a more balanced approach for both patients and physicians by attempting to reduce the volume that’s subject to prior authorization, by increasing transparency and communication, and by studying how the process can be improved overall. Second, we have over 50 organizations representing health care providers and patient advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. This is a systemic issue across the entire spectrum of healthcare,” said Mr. Kerr.

Mr. Kerr went on to say there were 81,143 denials for treatment in 2021. The three areas with the highest rate of denials were pharmacy, dental, and the combination of labs and radiology.

He further noted that, when consumers filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration, 72.4% of denials were reversed in 2022.

“This resulted in more benefits that could have, and should have, been given to the patient at the first request. These reversals indicate there is a problem,” Mr. Kerr said. He discussed increased administrative costs, the enormous workload burden this incurs, and the problem of burnout among medical providers.

The proposed legislation includes a ban on PA requirements for generic medications, for dose changes of previously authorized medication, and ends the requirement for yearly authorizations. It requires that a physician of the same specialty be on the panel that denies care and shortens the time periods allowed for responses and appeals.

Testimony began with those supporting the legislation. Doctors highlighted the harm inflicted on their patients by the PA process. An oncologist spoke of how it took weeks to get approval for chemotherapy for a patient with an aggressive cancer, a gastroenterologist discussed a patient who became ill and lost her job when successful treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was stopped while she waited for the yearly medication reapproval, and another physician told of a patient who died of an exacerbation of obstructive lung disease, also while awaiting a yearly reapproval for an effective medication.

A dentist spoke about how he was not authorized to place a crown on a patient’s tooth. Instead, he was instructed to try a filling first, and when the filling failed, he was told he would not be authorized to work on the same tooth twice in one year.

A physical therapist testified that PA was required every two to four sessions, and each request took up half of a session – a significant portion of time that was not used for treatment.

Three people testified in opposition to the bill. Matthew Celantano, executive director of the League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland, called the legislation “drastic” and testified that the cost would be prohibitive.

“From our end, it’s important for you to hear that prior authorization is care coordination. It’s protection that keeps [patients] safe, but helps control skyrocketing health care costs,” said Mr. Celantano.

Deb Rivkin, vice president of government affairs for CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield, testified in favor of using better technology. She cited legislation under consideration in Virginia that would give clinicians more information about the specific medications that require PAs, price information, and real-time authorizations.

Finally, representing the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Heather Cascone testified about PAs for generic medications. Her testimony focused on prior authorization for generic medications. She claimed that “... by allowing unrestricted dispensing of generic drugs, or an override based on the subjective opinion of the prescriber, prior authorization can protect patients from drugs with a safety risk; they can catch things like drug-disease contraindications, dosage errors, pregnancy-related contraindications, and a variety of cost-savings protections.”

I found this testimony particularly difficult because the “protector” is generally not a physician and has neither seen, nor examined, the patient. The implication that patients need protection from their doctors who would be unaware aware that they are pregnant, or are ill, was offensive. It also implies that PBMs are lax by not requiring PA on all medications, ignoring the fact that patients often bypass such denials by paying out of pocket for treatment.

If this had been a high school debate, there would be no doubt the enthusiasm for the bill for HB305 was strong, the committee chair was eager, and the arguments in favor of the legislation robust. There are no public minutes for the subsequent meetings with stakeholders, and I was somewhat heartbroken to learn that once again, the bill died in committee.

Annette Hanson, MD, chair of the MPS legislative committee, remains optimistic for the future. “Since then, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] has taken our bill and used it as model legislation now being offered to other district branches. MPS has created something that is going to spread across the country. Change may be slow, but it is not inevitable. And when it happens, I want you to remember that it started here,” she said.

However, the pressure is on. A recent ProPublica article documented how Cigna rejects claims by the batch without ever reviewing them. Soon after that piece was published, it was announced that several of the large insurers, including Cigna, would be cutting back on PA demands. It remains to be seen whether this is a token move to placate legislators, and whether it will provide meaningful relief to physicians and patients. I remain skeptical.

In the meantime, physicians’ ability to help their patients remains compromised and administrative tasks consume valuable time. I have started to wonder whether there may be some other way to push this issue to action. PA is about cost containment, but perhaps there are other ways to economize.

Why do medications cost less in other countries? Why does a medication cost hundreds of dollars more at one pharmacy versus another? Why do medicines sometimes have a copay that is two or three times higher than the cash price? Why do some covered medications have copays of thousands of dollars a year? I wonder if physicians shouldn’t come together and collectively agree not to comply and refuse to complete PAs in organized rebellion.

The fear, of course, is that such an endeavor would hurt patients, but if we all agreed in concert, then for better or for worse, something would have to give. The existing system is already hurting everyone, and physicians, by agreeing to play this awful game, are complicit in letting insurers dictate the care our patients receive.

Dinah Miller, MD, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) and has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

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

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Headlines such as these from major national news outlets have begun to cast doubt on one of the medications used in treating gender-diverse adolescents and young adults. GnRH agonists, such as leuprorelin and triptorelin, were first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1980s and have been used since then for a variety of medical indications. In the decades since, these medications have been successfully used with a generally favorable side effect profile.

GnRH agonists and puberty

In the treatment of precocious puberty, GnRH agonists are often started prior to the age of 7, depending on the age at which the affected patient begins showing signs of central puberty. These include breast development, scrotal enlargement, and so on. GnRH agonists typically are continued until age 10-12, depending on the patient and an informed discussion with the patient’s parents about optimal outcomes.¹ Therefore, it is not uncommon to see these medications used for anywhere from 1 to 4 years, depending on the age at which precocious puberty started.

GnRH agonists are used in two populations of transgender individuals. The first group is those youths who have just started their natal, or biological, puberty. The medication is not started until the patient has biochemical or physical exam evidence that puberty has started. The medication is then continued until hormones are started. This is usually 2-3 years on average, depending on the age at which the medication was started. This is essentially comparable with cisgender youths who have taken these medications for precocious puberty. The second population of individuals who use GnRH agonists is transgender women who are also on estrogen therapy. In these women, the GnRH agonist is used for androgen (testosterone) suppression.
 

Concerns over bone health

One of the main concerns recently expressed about long-term use of GnRH agonists is their effect on bone density. Adolescence is a critical time for bone mineral density (BMD) accrual and this is driven by sex hormones. When GnRH agonists are used to delay puberty in transgender adolescents, this then delays the maturation of the adult skeleton until the GnRH agonist is stopped (and natal puberty resumes) or cross-sex hormones are started. In a recent multicenter study² looking at baseline BMD of transgender youth at the time of GnRH agonist initiation, 30% of those assigned male at birth and 13% of those assigned female at birth had low bone mineral density for age (defined as a BMD z score of <–2). For those with low BMD, their physical activity scores were significantly lower than those with normal BMD. Thus, these adolescents require close follow-up, just like their cisgender peers.

There are currently no long-term data on the risk of developing fractures or osteoporosis in those individuals who were treated with GnRH agonists and then went on to start cross-sex hormone therapy. Some studies suggest that there is a risk that BMD does not recover after being on cross-sex hormones,³ while another study suggested that transgender men recover their BMD after being on testosterone.⁴ It is still unclear in that study why transgender women did not recover their BMD or why they were low at baseline. Interestingly, a 2012 study⁵ from Brazil showed that there was no difference in BMD for cisgender girls who had been off their GnRH agonist therapy for at least 3 years, as compared with their age-matched controls who had never been on GnRH agonist therapy. These conflicting data highlight the importance of long-term follow-up, as well as the need to include age-matched, cisgender control subjects, to better understand if there is truly a difference in transgender individuals or if today’s adolescents, in general, have low BMD.
 

Lingering questions

In summary, the use of GnRH agonists in transgender adolescents remains controversial because of the potential long-term effects on bone mineral density. However, this risk must be balanced against the risks of allowing natal puberty to progress in certain transgender individuals with the development of undesired secondary sex characteristics. More longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the long-term risks of osteoporosis and fractures in those who have undergone GnRH agonist therapy as part of their gender-affirming medical care, as well as any clinical interventions that might help mitigate this risk.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Harrington J et al. Treatment of precocious puberty. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-precocious-puberty.

2. Lee JY et al. J Endocr Soc. 2020;4(9):bvaa065. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa065.

3. Klink D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):E270-5. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. Schagen SEE et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(12):e4252-e4263. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa604.

5. Alessandri SB et al. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(6):591-6. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(06)08.
 

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Headlines such as these from major national news outlets have begun to cast doubt on one of the medications used in treating gender-diverse adolescents and young adults. GnRH agonists, such as leuprorelin and triptorelin, were first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1980s and have been used since then for a variety of medical indications. In the decades since, these medications have been successfully used with a generally favorable side effect profile.

GnRH agonists and puberty

In the treatment of precocious puberty, GnRH agonists are often started prior to the age of 7, depending on the age at which the affected patient begins showing signs of central puberty. These include breast development, scrotal enlargement, and so on. GnRH agonists typically are continued until age 10-12, depending on the patient and an informed discussion with the patient’s parents about optimal outcomes.¹ Therefore, it is not uncommon to see these medications used for anywhere from 1 to 4 years, depending on the age at which precocious puberty started.

GnRH agonists are used in two populations of transgender individuals. The first group is those youths who have just started their natal, or biological, puberty. The medication is not started until the patient has biochemical or physical exam evidence that puberty has started. The medication is then continued until hormones are started. This is usually 2-3 years on average, depending on the age at which the medication was started. This is essentially comparable with cisgender youths who have taken these medications for precocious puberty. The second population of individuals who use GnRH agonists is transgender women who are also on estrogen therapy. In these women, the GnRH agonist is used for androgen (testosterone) suppression.
 

Concerns over bone health

One of the main concerns recently expressed about long-term use of GnRH agonists is their effect on bone density. Adolescence is a critical time for bone mineral density (BMD) accrual and this is driven by sex hormones. When GnRH agonists are used to delay puberty in transgender adolescents, this then delays the maturation of the adult skeleton until the GnRH agonist is stopped (and natal puberty resumes) or cross-sex hormones are started. In a recent multicenter study² looking at baseline BMD of transgender youth at the time of GnRH agonist initiation, 30% of those assigned male at birth and 13% of those assigned female at birth had low bone mineral density for age (defined as a BMD z score of <–2). For those with low BMD, their physical activity scores were significantly lower than those with normal BMD. Thus, these adolescents require close follow-up, just like their cisgender peers.

There are currently no long-term data on the risk of developing fractures or osteoporosis in those individuals who were treated with GnRH agonists and then went on to start cross-sex hormone therapy. Some studies suggest that there is a risk that BMD does not recover after being on cross-sex hormones,³ while another study suggested that transgender men recover their BMD after being on testosterone.⁴ It is still unclear in that study why transgender women did not recover their BMD or why they were low at baseline. Interestingly, a 2012 study⁵ from Brazil showed that there was no difference in BMD for cisgender girls who had been off their GnRH agonist therapy for at least 3 years, as compared with their age-matched controls who had never been on GnRH agonist therapy. These conflicting data highlight the importance of long-term follow-up, as well as the need to include age-matched, cisgender control subjects, to better understand if there is truly a difference in transgender individuals or if today’s adolescents, in general, have low BMD.
 

Lingering questions

In summary, the use of GnRH agonists in transgender adolescents remains controversial because of the potential long-term effects on bone mineral density. However, this risk must be balanced against the risks of allowing natal puberty to progress in certain transgender individuals with the development of undesired secondary sex characteristics. More longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the long-term risks of osteoporosis and fractures in those who have undergone GnRH agonist therapy as part of their gender-affirming medical care, as well as any clinical interventions that might help mitigate this risk.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Harrington J et al. Treatment of precocious puberty. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-precocious-puberty.

2. Lee JY et al. J Endocr Soc. 2020;4(9):bvaa065. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa065.

3. Klink D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):E270-5. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. Schagen SEE et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(12):e4252-e4263. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa604.

5. Alessandri SB et al. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(6):591-6. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(06)08.
 

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Headlines such as these from major national news outlets have begun to cast doubt on one of the medications used in treating gender-diverse adolescents and young adults. GnRH agonists, such as leuprorelin and triptorelin, were first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1980s and have been used since then for a variety of medical indications. In the decades since, these medications have been successfully used with a generally favorable side effect profile.

GnRH agonists and puberty

In the treatment of precocious puberty, GnRH agonists are often started prior to the age of 7, depending on the age at which the affected patient begins showing signs of central puberty. These include breast development, scrotal enlargement, and so on. GnRH agonists typically are continued until age 10-12, depending on the patient and an informed discussion with the patient’s parents about optimal outcomes.¹ Therefore, it is not uncommon to see these medications used for anywhere from 1 to 4 years, depending on the age at which precocious puberty started.

GnRH agonists are used in two populations of transgender individuals. The first group is those youths who have just started their natal, or biological, puberty. The medication is not started until the patient has biochemical or physical exam evidence that puberty has started. The medication is then continued until hormones are started. This is usually 2-3 years on average, depending on the age at which the medication was started. This is essentially comparable with cisgender youths who have taken these medications for precocious puberty. The second population of individuals who use GnRH agonists is transgender women who are also on estrogen therapy. In these women, the GnRH agonist is used for androgen (testosterone) suppression.
 

Concerns over bone health

One of the main concerns recently expressed about long-term use of GnRH agonists is their effect on bone density. Adolescence is a critical time for bone mineral density (BMD) accrual and this is driven by sex hormones. When GnRH agonists are used to delay puberty in transgender adolescents, this then delays the maturation of the adult skeleton until the GnRH agonist is stopped (and natal puberty resumes) or cross-sex hormones are started. In a recent multicenter study² looking at baseline BMD of transgender youth at the time of GnRH agonist initiation, 30% of those assigned male at birth and 13% of those assigned female at birth had low bone mineral density for age (defined as a BMD z score of <–2). For those with low BMD, their physical activity scores were significantly lower than those with normal BMD. Thus, these adolescents require close follow-up, just like their cisgender peers.

There are currently no long-term data on the risk of developing fractures or osteoporosis in those individuals who were treated with GnRH agonists and then went on to start cross-sex hormone therapy. Some studies suggest that there is a risk that BMD does not recover after being on cross-sex hormones,³ while another study suggested that transgender men recover their BMD after being on testosterone.⁴ It is still unclear in that study why transgender women did not recover their BMD or why they were low at baseline. Interestingly, a 2012 study⁵ from Brazil showed that there was no difference in BMD for cisgender girls who had been off their GnRH agonist therapy for at least 3 years, as compared with their age-matched controls who had never been on GnRH agonist therapy. These conflicting data highlight the importance of long-term follow-up, as well as the need to include age-matched, cisgender control subjects, to better understand if there is truly a difference in transgender individuals or if today’s adolescents, in general, have low BMD.
 

Lingering questions

In summary, the use of GnRH agonists in transgender adolescents remains controversial because of the potential long-term effects on bone mineral density. However, this risk must be balanced against the risks of allowing natal puberty to progress in certain transgender individuals with the development of undesired secondary sex characteristics. More longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the long-term risks of osteoporosis and fractures in those who have undergone GnRH agonist therapy as part of their gender-affirming medical care, as well as any clinical interventions that might help mitigate this risk.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Harrington J et al. Treatment of precocious puberty. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-precocious-puberty.

2. Lee JY et al. J Endocr Soc. 2020;4(9):bvaa065. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvaa065.

3. Klink D et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(2):E270-5. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-2439.

4. Schagen SEE et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(12):e4252-e4263. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa604.

5. Alessandri SB et al. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(6):591-6. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(06)08.
 

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.

Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. Serving as CHEST President was an incredible privilege. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.

CHEST

The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We launched the First 5 Minutes^® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.

So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at [email protected]. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.


David

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.

Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. Serving as CHEST President was an incredible privilege. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.

CHEST

The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We launched the First 5 Minutes^® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.

So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at [email protected]. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.


David

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.

Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. Serving as CHEST President was an incredible privilege. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.

CHEST

The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We launched the First 5 Minutes^® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.

So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at [email protected]. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.


David

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL-LT) is a specific categorization of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (CBCL) demonstrating a predominance of immunoblasts and centroblasts with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.^1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.^1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.^1-5

Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).^1,3-5

This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6

PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.^2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.^1,2

Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
 

This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.

2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.

3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.

4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.

5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.

6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL-LT) is a specific categorization of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (CBCL) demonstrating a predominance of immunoblasts and centroblasts with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.^1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.^1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.^1-5

Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).^1,3-5

This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6

PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.^2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.^1,2

Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
 

This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.

2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.

3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.

4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.

5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.

6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL-LT) is a specific categorization of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma (CBCL) demonstrating a predominance of immunoblasts and centroblasts with scarce T-cells, classically presenting as rapidly progressive, plum-colored lesions on the lower extremities.^1,2 CBCLs, with PCDLBCL-LT accounting for 4%, make up the minority of cutaneous lymphomas in the Western world.^1-3 The leg type variant, typically demonstrating a female predominance and median age of onset in the 70s, is clinically aggressive and associated with a poorer prognosis, increased recurrence rate, and 40%-60% 5-year survival rate.^1-5

Histologically, this variant demonstrates a diffuse sheet-like growth of enlarged atypical B-cells distinctively separated from the epidermis by a prominent grenz zone. Classic PCDLBCL-LT immunophenotype includes B-cell markers CD20 and IgM; triple expressor phenotype indicating c-MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 positivity; as well as CD10 negativity, lack of BCL-2 rearrangement, and presence of a positive MYD-88 molecular result.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

Other characteristic histopathological findings include positivity for post-germinal markers IRF4/MUM-1 and FOXP-1, positivity for additional B-cell markers, including CD79 and PAX5, and negativity of t(14;18) (q32;21).^1,3-5

This case is of significant interest as it falls within the approximately 10% of PCDLBCL-LT cases demonstrating weak to negative MUM-1 staining, in addition to its presentation in a younger male individual.

Marlee Hill, University of Oklahoma

While MUM-1 positivity is common in this subtype, its presence, or lack thereof, should not be looked at in isolation when evaluating diagnostic criteria, nor has it been shown to have a statistically significant effect on survival rate – in contrast to factors like lesion location on the leg versus non-leg lesions, multiple lesions at diagnosis, and dissemination to other sites.2,6

PCDLBCL-LT can uncommonly present in non-leg locations and only 10% depict associated B-symptoms, such as fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, or lymphadenopathy.^2,6 First-line treatment is with the R-CHOP chemotherapy regimen – consisting of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone – although radiotherapy is sometimes considered in patients with a single small lesion.^1,2

Because of possible cutaneous involvement beyond the legs, common lack of systemic symptoms, and variable immunophenotypes, this case of MUM-1 negative PCDLBCL-LT highlights the importance of a clinicopathological approach to differentiate the subtypes of CBCLs, allowing for proper and individualized stratification of risk, prognosis, and treatment.
 

This case was submitted and written by Marlee Hill, BS, Michael Franzetti, MD, Jeffrey McBride, MD, and Allison Hood, MD, of the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. They also provided the photos. Donna Bilu Martin, MD, edited the column.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2019;133(16):1703-14.

2. Willemze R et al. Blood. 2005;105(10):3768-85.

3. Sukswai N et al. Pathology. 2020;52(1):53-67.

4. Hristov AC. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(8):876-81.

5. Sokol L et al. Cancer Control. 2012;19(3):236-44.

6. Grange F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1144-50.

For Sonja O’Leary, MD, higher rates of vaccination against human papillomavirus came with the flip of a switch.

Dr. O’Leary, the interim director of service for outpatient pediatric services at Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and her colleagues saw rates of HPV and other childhood immunizations drop during the COVID-19 pandemic and decided to act. Their health system, which includes 28 federally qualified health centers, offers vaccines at any inpatient or outpatient visit based on alerts from their electronic health record.

“It was actually really simple; it was really just changing our best-practice alert,” Dr. O’Leary said. Beginning in May 2021, and after notifying clinic staff of the impending change, DHHA dropped the alert for first dose of HPV from age 11 to 9.

The approach worked. Compared with the first 5 months of 2021, the percentage of children aged 9-13 years with an in-person visit who received at least one dose of HPV vaccine between June 2021 and August 2022 rose from 30.3% to 42.8% – a 41% increase. The share who received two doses by age 13 years more than doubled, from 19.3% to 42.7%, Dr. O’Leary said.
 

Frustrated efforts

Although those figures might seem to make an iron-clad case for earlier vaccinations against HPV – which is responsible for nearly 35,000 cases of cancer annually – factors beyond statistics have frustrated efforts to increase acceptance of the shots.

Data published in 2022 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 89.6% of teens aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, and 89% got one or more doses of meningococcal conjugate vaccine. However, only 76.9% had received one or more doses of HPV vaccine. The rate of receiving both doses needed for full protection was much lower (61.7%).

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society now endorse the strategy of offering HPV vaccine as early as age 9, which avoids the need for multiple shots at a single visit and results in more kids getting both doses. In a recent study that surveyed primary care professionals who see pediatric patients, 21% were already offering HPV vaccine at age 9, and another 48% were willing to try the approach.

What was the most common objection to the earlier age? Nearly three-quarters of clinicians said they felt that parents weren’t ready to talk about HPV vaccination yet.

Noel Brewer, PhD, one of the authors of the survey study, wondered why clinicians feel the need to bring up sex at all. “Providers should never be talking about sex when they are talking about vaccine, because that’s not the point,” said Dr. Brewer, the distinguished professor in public health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He pointed out that providers don’t talk about the route of transmission for any other vaccine.

Dr. Brewer led a randomized controlled trial that trained pediatric clinicians in the “announcement” strategy, in which the clinician announces the vaccines that are due at that visit. If the parent hesitates, the clinician then probes further to identify and address their concerns and provides more information. If the parent is still not convinced, the clinician notes the discussion in the chart and tries again at the next visit.

The strategy was effective: Intervention clinics had a 5.4% higher rate of HPV vaccination coverage than control clinics after six months. Dr. Brewer and his colleagues have trained over 1,700 providers in the technique since 2020.
 

A cancer – not STI – vaccine

Although DHHA hasn’t participated in Dr. Brewer’s training, Dr. O’Leary and her colleagues take a similar approach of simply stating which vaccines the child should receive that day. And they talk about HPV as a cancer vaccine instead of one to prevent a sexually transmitted infection. 

In her experience, this emphasis changes the conversation. Dr. O’Leary described a typical comment from parents as, “Oh, of course I would give my child a vaccine that could prevent cancer.”

Ana Rodriguez, MD, MPH, an obstetrician, became interested in raising rates of vaccination against HPV after watching too many women battle a preventable cancer. She worked for several years in the Rio Grande Valley along the U.S. border with Mexico, an impoverished rural area with poor access to health care and high rates of HPV infection.

“I would treat women very young – not even 30 years of age – already fighting advanced precancerous lesions secondary to HPV,” said Dr. Rodriguez, an associate professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

In 2016, when Texas ranked 47th in the nation for rates of up-to-date HPV vaccination, Dr. Rodriguez helped launch a community-based educational campaign in four rural counties in the Rio Grande Valley using social media, radio, and in-person meetings with school PTA members and members of school boards to educate staff and parents about the need for vaccination against the infection.

In 2019, the team began offering the vaccine to children ages 9-12 years at back-to-school events, progress report nights, and other school events, pivoting to outdoor events using a mobile vaccine van after COVID-19 struck. They recently published a study showing that 73.6% of students who received their first dose of vaccine at age 11 or younger completed the series, compared with only 45.1% of children who got their first dose at age 12 or older.

Dr. Rodriguez encountered parents who felt 9 or 10 years old was too young because their children were not going to be sexually active anytime soon. Her response was to describe HPV as a tool to prevent cancer, telling parents, “If you vaccinate your kids young enough, they will be protected for life.”

Lifetime protection is another point in favor of giving HPV vaccine prior to Tdap and MenACWY. The response to the two-dose series of HPV in preadolescents is robust and long-lasting, with no downside to giving it a few years earlier. In contrast, immunity to MenACWY wanes after a few years, so the immunization must be given before children enter high school, when their risk for meningitis increases.

The annual toll of deaths in the United States from meningococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis typically totals less than 100, whereas cancer deaths attributable to HPV infection number in the thousands each year. And that may be the best reason for attempting new strategies to help HPV vaccination rates catch up to the rest of the preteen vaccines.

Dr. Brewer’s work was supported by the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina, and from training grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brewer has received research funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GSK and served as a paid advisor for Merck. Dr. O’Leary reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rodriguez received a grant from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the study was supported by the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch.

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

For Sonja O’Leary, MD, higher rates of vaccination against human papillomavirus came with the flip of a switch.

Dr. O’Leary, the interim director of service for outpatient pediatric services at Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and her colleagues saw rates of HPV and other childhood immunizations drop during the COVID-19 pandemic and decided to act. Their health system, which includes 28 federally qualified health centers, offers vaccines at any inpatient or outpatient visit based on alerts from their electronic health record.

“It was actually really simple; it was really just changing our best-practice alert,” Dr. O’Leary said. Beginning in May 2021, and after notifying clinic staff of the impending change, DHHA dropped the alert for first dose of HPV from age 11 to 9.

The approach worked. Compared with the first 5 months of 2021, the percentage of children aged 9-13 years with an in-person visit who received at least one dose of HPV vaccine between June 2021 and August 2022 rose from 30.3% to 42.8% – a 41% increase. The share who received two doses by age 13 years more than doubled, from 19.3% to 42.7%, Dr. O’Leary said.
 

Frustrated efforts

Although those figures might seem to make an iron-clad case for earlier vaccinations against HPV – which is responsible for nearly 35,000 cases of cancer annually – factors beyond statistics have frustrated efforts to increase acceptance of the shots.

Data published in 2022 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 89.6% of teens aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, and 89% got one or more doses of meningococcal conjugate vaccine. However, only 76.9% had received one or more doses of HPV vaccine. The rate of receiving both doses needed for full protection was much lower (61.7%).

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society now endorse the strategy of offering HPV vaccine as early as age 9, which avoids the need for multiple shots at a single visit and results in more kids getting both doses. In a recent study that surveyed primary care professionals who see pediatric patients, 21% were already offering HPV vaccine at age 9, and another 48% were willing to try the approach.

What was the most common objection to the earlier age? Nearly three-quarters of clinicians said they felt that parents weren’t ready to talk about HPV vaccination yet.

Noel Brewer, PhD, one of the authors of the survey study, wondered why clinicians feel the need to bring up sex at all. “Providers should never be talking about sex when they are talking about vaccine, because that’s not the point,” said Dr. Brewer, the distinguished professor in public health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He pointed out that providers don’t talk about the route of transmission for any other vaccine.

Dr. Brewer led a randomized controlled trial that trained pediatric clinicians in the “announcement” strategy, in which the clinician announces the vaccines that are due at that visit. If the parent hesitates, the clinician then probes further to identify and address their concerns and provides more information. If the parent is still not convinced, the clinician notes the discussion in the chart and tries again at the next visit.

The strategy was effective: Intervention clinics had a 5.4% higher rate of HPV vaccination coverage than control clinics after six months. Dr. Brewer and his colleagues have trained over 1,700 providers in the technique since 2020.
 

A cancer – not STI – vaccine

Although DHHA hasn’t participated in Dr. Brewer’s training, Dr. O’Leary and her colleagues take a similar approach of simply stating which vaccines the child should receive that day. And they talk about HPV as a cancer vaccine instead of one to prevent a sexually transmitted infection. 

In her experience, this emphasis changes the conversation. Dr. O’Leary described a typical comment from parents as, “Oh, of course I would give my child a vaccine that could prevent cancer.”

Ana Rodriguez, MD, MPH, an obstetrician, became interested in raising rates of vaccination against HPV after watching too many women battle a preventable cancer. She worked for several years in the Rio Grande Valley along the U.S. border with Mexico, an impoverished rural area with poor access to health care and high rates of HPV infection.

“I would treat women very young – not even 30 years of age – already fighting advanced precancerous lesions secondary to HPV,” said Dr. Rodriguez, an associate professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

In 2016, when Texas ranked 47th in the nation for rates of up-to-date HPV vaccination, Dr. Rodriguez helped launch a community-based educational campaign in four rural counties in the Rio Grande Valley using social media, radio, and in-person meetings with school PTA members and members of school boards to educate staff and parents about the need for vaccination against the infection.

In 2019, the team began offering the vaccine to children ages 9-12 years at back-to-school events, progress report nights, and other school events, pivoting to outdoor events using a mobile vaccine van after COVID-19 struck. They recently published a study showing that 73.6% of students who received their first dose of vaccine at age 11 or younger completed the series, compared with only 45.1% of children who got their first dose at age 12 or older.

Dr. Rodriguez encountered parents who felt 9 or 10 years old was too young because their children were not going to be sexually active anytime soon. Her response was to describe HPV as a tool to prevent cancer, telling parents, “If you vaccinate your kids young enough, they will be protected for life.”

Lifetime protection is another point in favor of giving HPV vaccine prior to Tdap and MenACWY. The response to the two-dose series of HPV in preadolescents is robust and long-lasting, with no downside to giving it a few years earlier. In contrast, immunity to MenACWY wanes after a few years, so the immunization must be given before children enter high school, when their risk for meningitis increases.

The annual toll of deaths in the United States from meningococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis typically totals less than 100, whereas cancer deaths attributable to HPV infection number in the thousands each year. And that may be the best reason for attempting new strategies to help HPV vaccination rates catch up to the rest of the preteen vaccines.

Dr. Brewer’s work was supported by the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina, and from training grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brewer has received research funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GSK and served as a paid advisor for Merck. Dr. O’Leary reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rodriguez received a grant from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the study was supported by the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch.

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

For Sonja O’Leary, MD, higher rates of vaccination against human papillomavirus came with the flip of a switch.

Dr. O’Leary, the interim director of service for outpatient pediatric services at Denver Health and Hospital Authority, and her colleagues saw rates of HPV and other childhood immunizations drop during the COVID-19 pandemic and decided to act. Their health system, which includes 28 federally qualified health centers, offers vaccines at any inpatient or outpatient visit based on alerts from their electronic health record.

“It was actually really simple; it was really just changing our best-practice alert,” Dr. O’Leary said. Beginning in May 2021, and after notifying clinic staff of the impending change, DHHA dropped the alert for first dose of HPV from age 11 to 9.

The approach worked. Compared with the first 5 months of 2021, the percentage of children aged 9-13 years with an in-person visit who received at least one dose of HPV vaccine between June 2021 and August 2022 rose from 30.3% to 42.8% – a 41% increase. The share who received two doses by age 13 years more than doubled, from 19.3% to 42.7%, Dr. O’Leary said.
 

Frustrated efforts

Although those figures might seem to make an iron-clad case for earlier vaccinations against HPV – which is responsible for nearly 35,000 cases of cancer annually – factors beyond statistics have frustrated efforts to increase acceptance of the shots.

Data published in 2022 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 89.6% of teens aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, and 89% got one or more doses of meningococcal conjugate vaccine. However, only 76.9% had received one or more doses of HPV vaccine. The rate of receiving both doses needed for full protection was much lower (61.7%).

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society now endorse the strategy of offering HPV vaccine as early as age 9, which avoids the need for multiple shots at a single visit and results in more kids getting both doses. In a recent study that surveyed primary care professionals who see pediatric patients, 21% were already offering HPV vaccine at age 9, and another 48% were willing to try the approach.

What was the most common objection to the earlier age? Nearly three-quarters of clinicians said they felt that parents weren’t ready to talk about HPV vaccination yet.

Noel Brewer, PhD, one of the authors of the survey study, wondered why clinicians feel the need to bring up sex at all. “Providers should never be talking about sex when they are talking about vaccine, because that’s not the point,” said Dr. Brewer, the distinguished professor in public health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He pointed out that providers don’t talk about the route of transmission for any other vaccine.

Dr. Brewer led a randomized controlled trial that trained pediatric clinicians in the “announcement” strategy, in which the clinician announces the vaccines that are due at that visit. If the parent hesitates, the clinician then probes further to identify and address their concerns and provides more information. If the parent is still not convinced, the clinician notes the discussion in the chart and tries again at the next visit.

The strategy was effective: Intervention clinics had a 5.4% higher rate of HPV vaccination coverage than control clinics after six months. Dr. Brewer and his colleagues have trained over 1,700 providers in the technique since 2020.
 

A cancer – not STI – vaccine

Although DHHA hasn’t participated in Dr. Brewer’s training, Dr. O’Leary and her colleagues take a similar approach of simply stating which vaccines the child should receive that day. And they talk about HPV as a cancer vaccine instead of one to prevent a sexually transmitted infection. 

In her experience, this emphasis changes the conversation. Dr. O’Leary described a typical comment from parents as, “Oh, of course I would give my child a vaccine that could prevent cancer.”

Ana Rodriguez, MD, MPH, an obstetrician, became interested in raising rates of vaccination against HPV after watching too many women battle a preventable cancer. She worked for several years in the Rio Grande Valley along the U.S. border with Mexico, an impoverished rural area with poor access to health care and high rates of HPV infection.

“I would treat women very young – not even 30 years of age – already fighting advanced precancerous lesions secondary to HPV,” said Dr. Rodriguez, an associate professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

In 2016, when Texas ranked 47th in the nation for rates of up-to-date HPV vaccination, Dr. Rodriguez helped launch a community-based educational campaign in four rural counties in the Rio Grande Valley using social media, radio, and in-person meetings with school PTA members and members of school boards to educate staff and parents about the need for vaccination against the infection.

In 2019, the team began offering the vaccine to children ages 9-12 years at back-to-school events, progress report nights, and other school events, pivoting to outdoor events using a mobile vaccine van after COVID-19 struck. They recently published a study showing that 73.6% of students who received their first dose of vaccine at age 11 or younger completed the series, compared with only 45.1% of children who got their first dose at age 12 or older.

Dr. Rodriguez encountered parents who felt 9 or 10 years old was too young because their children were not going to be sexually active anytime soon. Her response was to describe HPV as a tool to prevent cancer, telling parents, “If you vaccinate your kids young enough, they will be protected for life.”

Lifetime protection is another point in favor of giving HPV vaccine prior to Tdap and MenACWY. The response to the two-dose series of HPV in preadolescents is robust and long-lasting, with no downside to giving it a few years earlier. In contrast, immunity to MenACWY wanes after a few years, so the immunization must be given before children enter high school, when their risk for meningitis increases.

The annual toll of deaths in the United States from meningococcus, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis typically totals less than 100, whereas cancer deaths attributable to HPV infection number in the thousands each year. And that may be the best reason for attempting new strategies to help HPV vaccination rates catch up to the rest of the preteen vaccines.

Dr. Brewer’s work was supported by the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina, and from training grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brewer has received research funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GSK and served as a paid advisor for Merck. Dr. O’Leary reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rodriguez received a grant from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the study was supported by the Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although the past several decades have seen significantly greater emphasis on screening and disease prevention for CRC, it has also become increasingly apparent that the age profile and associated risks for this cancer are rapidly changing.

Evidence of this can be found in recently released CRC statistics from the American Cancer Society, which are updated every 3 years using population-based cancer registries.

The incidence in CRC has shown a progressive decline over the past 4 decades. However, whereas in the 2000s there was an average decline of approximately 3%-4% annually, it slowed to 1% per year between 2011 and 2019. This effect is in part because of the trends among younger individuals (< 55 years), in whom the incidence of CRC has increased by 9% over the past 25 years.

The incidence of regional-stage disease also increased by 2%-3% per year for those younger than 65 years, with an additional increase in the incidence of more advanced/distant disease by 0.5%-3% per year. The latter finding represents a reversal of earlier trends observed for staged disease in the decade from 1995 to 2005.

These recent statistics reveal other notable changes that occurred in parallel with the increased incidence of younger-onset CRC. There was a significant shift to left-sided tumors, with a 4% increase in rectal cancers in the decades spanning 1995–2019.

Although the overall mortality declined 2% from 2011 to 2020, the reverse was seen in patients younger than 50 years, in whom there was an increase by 0.5%-3% annually.

Available incidence and mortality data for the current year are understandably lacking, as there is a 2- to 4-year lag for data collection and assimilation, and there have also been methodological changes for tracking and projections. Nonetheless, 2023 projections estimate that there will be 153,020 new cases in the United States, with 19,550 (13%) to occur in those younger than 50 years and 33% in those aged 50-64 years. Overall, 43% of cases are projected to occur in those aged 45-49 years, which is noteworthy given that these ages are now included in the most current CRC screening recommendations.

Further underscoring the risks posed by earlier-onset trends is the projection of 52,550 CRC-related deaths in 2023, with 7% estimated to occur in those younger than 50 years.
 

What’s behind the trend toward younger onset?

The specific factors contributing to increasing rates of CRC in younger individuals are not well known, but there are several plausible explanations. Notable possible contributing factors reported in the literature include obesity, smoking, alcohol, diet, and microbial changes, among other demographic variables. Exposure to high-fructose corn syrup, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed meats has also recently received attention as contributing dietary risk factors.

The shifting trends toward the onset of CRC among younger patients are now clearly established, with approximately 20% of new cases occurring in those in their early 50s or younger and a higher rate of left-sided tumor development. Unfortunately, these shifts are also associated with a more advanced stage of disease.

There are unique clinical challenges when it comes to identifying younger-onset CRC. A low level of suspicion among primary care providers that their younger patients may have CRC can result in delays in their receiving clinically appropriate diagnostic testing (particularly for overt or occult bleeding/iron deficiency). Younger patients may also be less likely to know about or adhere to new recommendations that they undergo screening.

The landscape for age-related CRC is changing. Although there are many obstacles for implementing new practices, these recent findings from the ACS also highlight a clear path for improvement.

David A. Johnson, MD, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology.

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

Although I have worked with depressed patients for many years, I have come to realize that it is now unfortunately an essential primary care skill to have nuanced conversations about reducing access to and use of deadly weapons (lethal means) for all families.

Firearms are now the leading cause of death for U.S. children and youth aged 1-24 years, an increase of 29.5% from 2019 to 2020. Among all youth firearm deaths, homicides (58%), suicides (37%), unintentional shootings (2%), and legal intervention (1%) were causes. These horrific numbers do not even include almost 400,000 child ED visits from 2010 to 2019 for nonfatal firearm injuries that were unintentional (39.4%), assault-related (37.7%), or self-harm (1.7%).

Accidental injury from firearms is greater when the weapon is a handgun or pistol as these are small enough to be fired by a 2-year-old, more likely to be stored loaded with ammunition as “self-protection,” and less likely to be in a gun storage case.

While an overall decline in gun ownership has occurred in homes with children ages 1-5, the proportion of weapons that are handguns has actually increased, posing higher danger to the family itself. We can’t assume hiding a weapon is ever enough as children often know the location of guns and their keys or lock codes.

Many Americans fear for their safety, have doubts about policing as protective, and strongly assert the need to protect themselves. While asking about guns in the home is universally recommended, these beliefs need to be taken into account in the discussion. It is also important to speak with the firearm owner, most often the father. We might ask, “Do you feel that you need a firearm in your home to feel safe?” as a way to nonjudgmentally acknowledge their beliefs. Because women are more likely to be killed by their spouses than by all other types of assailants combined, we can ask, “What dangers worry you the most?” and “Do you feel safe in your current and any past relationships?” If their answer is worrisome, the discussion must first turn to dealing with the family situation. If the perceived threat is outside the family, we can inform families that having a gun in evidence in the home greatly increases the risk of being hurt by an assailant as well as risk for child injury and death. We might ask, “Can you think of any other ways to protect your home (for example, alarm system, outdoor lighting, dog, or pepper spray)?”

If parents insist on keeping a gun, we can strongly and directly recommend that all firearms be stored locked, unloaded, and with ammunition locked and stored separately. We can provide information on such locking and storage options. Programs in which information on devices to disable the gun were provided – such as cables to pass through the chamber or trigger locks – have shown big increases in safe gun storage. It may be worth saying/posting information on the Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws, enacted by many states, making adults owning firearms that are not stored safely unloaded legally responsible for any resulting injuries or deaths. Such laws have reduced injuries of both children and adults by 30%-40%, unintentional gun deaths by 23%, and gun suicides by 11% (for 14- to 17-year-olds).

If the reason for owning a gun is for hunting, the owner is more likely to have had firearm safety training and use a long gun. Long guns are more difficult for a child. Discussing safe hunting gun storage is still worth recommending, as is removing any handguns they may own as these are most dangerous.

Removing or securing firearms is important for everyone’s safety but it is an essential and perhaps more difficult topic of discussion when a child is at risk for suicide or harming others. We need to consider some crucial facts about completed suicide, now the leading cause of death in children and adolescents and largely from guns. Most suicide attempts occur within 10 minutes of having a wave of suicidal thoughts. These waves of thoughts may be acted upon immediately when lethal means are available, with guns by far the most likely to result in death. It is therefore critical to assess access and counsel about lethal means in every family with a child reporting thoughts of killing themselves or others, or a history of violence or substance use. Even without imminent risk of self-harm, we can start a discussion about securing lethal means by saying, “It’s like wearing a seatbelt; you don’t expect a car crash, but if one happens, wearing a safety belt can greatly reduce injury. Guns are the most frequent cause of dying, so let’s make a plan to reduce access to those.”

Creating a written plan to deal with waves of suicidal thoughts is the basis of a Safety Plan. We can accurately remind families and youth that “When someone is struggling like this, sometimes suicidal feelings can show up and get worse fast. There are steps I routinely recommend to make things safer at home.”

It is important to assess the presence of guns in the primary home and other places the child spends time even if we have asked in the past, as things change. If firearms are present, even if locked up appropriately, when a child is having suicidal thoughts we can say, “What some gun owners in your situation do is store weapons elsewhere temporarily with someone they trust, at a self-storage unit, gun or pawn shop, or police department. I’d like to talk over storage options like that with you.” If the child themself owns the firearm, they need to agree with a removal or lock up plan for giving up their access.

If the gun owner is unwilling to remove firearms, even temporarily, we can ask them to lock them up separately from ammunition, a move that alone reduces danger a lot, and ensure the child has no access to the keys or combination. Better yet, we can ask, “Would you be willing to ask someone who doesn’t live in your home to hold the keys or to change the combination temporarily or at least store the ammunition?” They could also remove from the home a critical component of the gun so that it can’t fire, such as the slide or firing pin. If even those steps are not accepted, we can ask, “What other options would you be willing to consider to increase your child’s safety, at least until s/he is doing better?”

Whatever plan we negotiate with the family, as for any health behavior change strategy, it is more likely to be implemented if we summarize the specifics, write them down, and set a time-frame for carrying it out. We might say, “Let’s review who’s doing what and when: Dad will take the guns to his uncle’s house tomorrow and meanwhile, he will put them in the gun safe.” A follow-up call or contact soon, a key part of management of suicidal ideation, also signals how strongly we care about these safety measures and has been shown to increase implementation. We might call to say, “I wanted to check in and see how [you/your child] is doing and also ask how the plan is going that we talked about for gun storage.”

Discussions about firearms can spark strong emotions, especially if the family suspects political motivations. The Florida law prohibiting health care providers from discussing guns with patients was overturned but the thinking remains and may give us pause before having these important conversations. First of all, we need to stay calm and be prepared with key facts. The “sandwich” method is a useful approach to reduce resistance: start with something you can agree on (such as “What we hear on the news can make us all scared about safety”); then add the facts we want to convey (such as “You are actually less likely to get hurt in a break-in if you do not have a gun”); then conclude with a positive (such as “I can see that you are giving a lot of thought to how to keep your family safe”). Families generally trust our intentions and knowledge and appreciate rather than resent safety counseling when it is given in a nonjudgmental manner. Because we are protectors of child health, firearm safety must be an essential part of our anticipatory guidance.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

*Wording suggestions adapted from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/recommendations/clinicians.

Although I have worked with depressed patients for many years, I have come to realize that it is now unfortunately an essential primary care skill to have nuanced conversations about reducing access to and use of deadly weapons (lethal means) for all families.

Firearms are now the leading cause of death for U.S. children and youth aged 1-24 years, an increase of 29.5% from 2019 to 2020. Among all youth firearm deaths, homicides (58%), suicides (37%), unintentional shootings (2%), and legal intervention (1%) were causes. These horrific numbers do not even include almost 400,000 child ED visits from 2010 to 2019 for nonfatal firearm injuries that were unintentional (39.4%), assault-related (37.7%), or self-harm (1.7%).

Accidental injury from firearms is greater when the weapon is a handgun or pistol as these are small enough to be fired by a 2-year-old, more likely to be stored loaded with ammunition as “self-protection,” and less likely to be in a gun storage case.

While an overall decline in gun ownership has occurred in homes with children ages 1-5, the proportion of weapons that are handguns has actually increased, posing higher danger to the family itself. We can’t assume hiding a weapon is ever enough as children often know the location of guns and their keys or lock codes.

Many Americans fear for their safety, have doubts about policing as protective, and strongly assert the need to protect themselves. While asking about guns in the home is universally recommended, these beliefs need to be taken into account in the discussion. It is also important to speak with the firearm owner, most often the father. We might ask, “Do you feel that you need a firearm in your home to feel safe?” as a way to nonjudgmentally acknowledge their beliefs. Because women are more likely to be killed by their spouses than by all other types of assailants combined, we can ask, “What dangers worry you the most?” and “Do you feel safe in your current and any past relationships?” If their answer is worrisome, the discussion must first turn to dealing with the family situation. If the perceived threat is outside the family, we can inform families that having a gun in evidence in the home greatly increases the risk of being hurt by an assailant as well as risk for child injury and death. We might ask, “Can you think of any other ways to protect your home (for example, alarm system, outdoor lighting, dog, or pepper spray)?”

If parents insist on keeping a gun, we can strongly and directly recommend that all firearms be stored locked, unloaded, and with ammunition locked and stored separately. We can provide information on such locking and storage options. Programs in which information on devices to disable the gun were provided – such as cables to pass through the chamber or trigger locks – have shown big increases in safe gun storage. It may be worth saying/posting information on the Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws, enacted by many states, making adults owning firearms that are not stored safely unloaded legally responsible for any resulting injuries or deaths. Such laws have reduced injuries of both children and adults by 30%-40%, unintentional gun deaths by 23%, and gun suicides by 11% (for 14- to 17-year-olds).

If the reason for owning a gun is for hunting, the owner is more likely to have had firearm safety training and use a long gun. Long guns are more difficult for a child. Discussing safe hunting gun storage is still worth recommending, as is removing any handguns they may own as these are most dangerous.

Removing or securing firearms is important for everyone’s safety but it is an essential and perhaps more difficult topic of discussion when a child is at risk for suicide or harming others. We need to consider some crucial facts about completed suicide, now the leading cause of death in children and adolescents and largely from guns. Most suicide attempts occur within 10 minutes of having a wave of suicidal thoughts. These waves of thoughts may be acted upon immediately when lethal means are available, with guns by far the most likely to result in death. It is therefore critical to assess access and counsel about lethal means in every family with a child reporting thoughts of killing themselves or others, or a history of violence or substance use. Even without imminent risk of self-harm, we can start a discussion about securing lethal means by saying, “It’s like wearing a seatbelt; you don’t expect a car crash, but if one happens, wearing a safety belt can greatly reduce injury. Guns are the most frequent cause of dying, so let’s make a plan to reduce access to those.”

Creating a written plan to deal with waves of suicidal thoughts is the basis of a Safety Plan. We can accurately remind families and youth that “When someone is struggling like this, sometimes suicidal feelings can show up and get worse fast. There are steps I routinely recommend to make things safer at home.”

It is important to assess the presence of guns in the primary home and other places the child spends time even if we have asked in the past, as things change. If firearms are present, even if locked up appropriately, when a child is having suicidal thoughts we can say, “What some gun owners in your situation do is store weapons elsewhere temporarily with someone they trust, at a self-storage unit, gun or pawn shop, or police department. I’d like to talk over storage options like that with you.” If the child themself owns the firearm, they need to agree with a removal or lock up plan for giving up their access.

If the gun owner is unwilling to remove firearms, even temporarily, we can ask them to lock them up separately from ammunition, a move that alone reduces danger a lot, and ensure the child has no access to the keys or combination. Better yet, we can ask, “Would you be willing to ask someone who doesn’t live in your home to hold the keys or to change the combination temporarily or at least store the ammunition?” They could also remove from the home a critical component of the gun so that it can’t fire, such as the slide or firing pin. If even those steps are not accepted, we can ask, “What other options would you be willing to consider to increase your child’s safety, at least until s/he is doing better?”

Whatever plan we negotiate with the family, as for any health behavior change strategy, it is more likely to be implemented if we summarize the specifics, write them down, and set a time-frame for carrying it out. We might say, “Let’s review who’s doing what and when: Dad will take the guns to his uncle’s house tomorrow and meanwhile, he will put them in the gun safe.” A follow-up call or contact soon, a key part of management of suicidal ideation, also signals how strongly we care about these safety measures and has been shown to increase implementation. We might call to say, “I wanted to check in and see how [you/your child] is doing and also ask how the plan is going that we talked about for gun storage.”

Discussions about firearms can spark strong emotions, especially if the family suspects political motivations. The Florida law prohibiting health care providers from discussing guns with patients was overturned but the thinking remains and may give us pause before having these important conversations. First of all, we need to stay calm and be prepared with key facts. The “sandwich” method is a useful approach to reduce resistance: start with something you can agree on (such as “What we hear on the news can make us all scared about safety”); then add the facts we want to convey (such as “You are actually less likely to get hurt in a break-in if you do not have a gun”); then conclude with a positive (such as “I can see that you are giving a lot of thought to how to keep your family safe”). Families generally trust our intentions and knowledge and appreciate rather than resent safety counseling when it is given in a nonjudgmental manner. Because we are protectors of child health, firearm safety must be an essential part of our anticipatory guidance.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

*Wording suggestions adapted from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/recommendations/clinicians.

Although I have worked with depressed patients for many years, I have come to realize that it is now unfortunately an essential primary care skill to have nuanced conversations about reducing access to and use of deadly weapons (lethal means) for all families.

Firearms are now the leading cause of death for U.S. children and youth aged 1-24 years, an increase of 29.5% from 2019 to 2020. Among all youth firearm deaths, homicides (58%), suicides (37%), unintentional shootings (2%), and legal intervention (1%) were causes. These horrific numbers do not even include almost 400,000 child ED visits from 2010 to 2019 for nonfatal firearm injuries that were unintentional (39.4%), assault-related (37.7%), or self-harm (1.7%).

Accidental injury from firearms is greater when the weapon is a handgun or pistol as these are small enough to be fired by a 2-year-old, more likely to be stored loaded with ammunition as “self-protection,” and less likely to be in a gun storage case.

While an overall decline in gun ownership has occurred in homes with children ages 1-5, the proportion of weapons that are handguns has actually increased, posing higher danger to the family itself. We can’t assume hiding a weapon is ever enough as children often know the location of guns and their keys or lock codes.

Many Americans fear for their safety, have doubts about policing as protective, and strongly assert the need to protect themselves. While asking about guns in the home is universally recommended, these beliefs need to be taken into account in the discussion. It is also important to speak with the firearm owner, most often the father. We might ask, “Do you feel that you need a firearm in your home to feel safe?” as a way to nonjudgmentally acknowledge their beliefs. Because women are more likely to be killed by their spouses than by all other types of assailants combined, we can ask, “What dangers worry you the most?” and “Do you feel safe in your current and any past relationships?” If their answer is worrisome, the discussion must first turn to dealing with the family situation. If the perceived threat is outside the family, we can inform families that having a gun in evidence in the home greatly increases the risk of being hurt by an assailant as well as risk for child injury and death. We might ask, “Can you think of any other ways to protect your home (for example, alarm system, outdoor lighting, dog, or pepper spray)?”

If parents insist on keeping a gun, we can strongly and directly recommend that all firearms be stored locked, unloaded, and with ammunition locked and stored separately. We can provide information on such locking and storage options. Programs in which information on devices to disable the gun were provided – such as cables to pass through the chamber or trigger locks – have shown big increases in safe gun storage. It may be worth saying/posting information on the Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws, enacted by many states, making adults owning firearms that are not stored safely unloaded legally responsible for any resulting injuries or deaths. Such laws have reduced injuries of both children and adults by 30%-40%, unintentional gun deaths by 23%, and gun suicides by 11% (for 14- to 17-year-olds).

If the reason for owning a gun is for hunting, the owner is more likely to have had firearm safety training and use a long gun. Long guns are more difficult for a child. Discussing safe hunting gun storage is still worth recommending, as is removing any handguns they may own as these are most dangerous.

Removing or securing firearms is important for everyone’s safety but it is an essential and perhaps more difficult topic of discussion when a child is at risk for suicide or harming others. We need to consider some crucial facts about completed suicide, now the leading cause of death in children and adolescents and largely from guns. Most suicide attempts occur within 10 minutes of having a wave of suicidal thoughts. These waves of thoughts may be acted upon immediately when lethal means are available, with guns by far the most likely to result in death. It is therefore critical to assess access and counsel about lethal means in every family with a child reporting thoughts of killing themselves or others, or a history of violence or substance use. Even without imminent risk of self-harm, we can start a discussion about securing lethal means by saying, “It’s like wearing a seatbelt; you don’t expect a car crash, but if one happens, wearing a safety belt can greatly reduce injury. Guns are the most frequent cause of dying, so let’s make a plan to reduce access to those.”

Creating a written plan to deal with waves of suicidal thoughts is the basis of a Safety Plan. We can accurately remind families and youth that “When someone is struggling like this, sometimes suicidal feelings can show up and get worse fast. There are steps I routinely recommend to make things safer at home.”

It is important to assess the presence of guns in the primary home and other places the child spends time even if we have asked in the past, as things change. If firearms are present, even if locked up appropriately, when a child is having suicidal thoughts we can say, “What some gun owners in your situation do is store weapons elsewhere temporarily with someone they trust, at a self-storage unit, gun or pawn shop, or police department. I’d like to talk over storage options like that with you.” If the child themself owns the firearm, they need to agree with a removal or lock up plan for giving up their access.

If the gun owner is unwilling to remove firearms, even temporarily, we can ask them to lock them up separately from ammunition, a move that alone reduces danger a lot, and ensure the child has no access to the keys or combination. Better yet, we can ask, “Would you be willing to ask someone who doesn’t live in your home to hold the keys or to change the combination temporarily or at least store the ammunition?” They could also remove from the home a critical component of the gun so that it can’t fire, such as the slide or firing pin. If even those steps are not accepted, we can ask, “What other options would you be willing to consider to increase your child’s safety, at least until s/he is doing better?”

Whatever plan we negotiate with the family, as for any health behavior change strategy, it is more likely to be implemented if we summarize the specifics, write them down, and set a time-frame for carrying it out. We might say, “Let’s review who’s doing what and when: Dad will take the guns to his uncle’s house tomorrow and meanwhile, he will put them in the gun safe.” A follow-up call or contact soon, a key part of management of suicidal ideation, also signals how strongly we care about these safety measures and has been shown to increase implementation. We might call to say, “I wanted to check in and see how [you/your child] is doing and also ask how the plan is going that we talked about for gun storage.”

Discussions about firearms can spark strong emotions, especially if the family suspects political motivations. The Florida law prohibiting health care providers from discussing guns with patients was overturned but the thinking remains and may give us pause before having these important conversations. First of all, we need to stay calm and be prepared with key facts. The “sandwich” method is a useful approach to reduce resistance: start with something you can agree on (such as “What we hear on the news can make us all scared about safety”); then add the facts we want to convey (such as “You are actually less likely to get hurt in a break-in if you do not have a gun”); then conclude with a positive (such as “I can see that you are giving a lot of thought to how to keep your family safe”). Families generally trust our intentions and knowledge and appreciate rather than resent safety counseling when it is given in a nonjudgmental manner. Because we are protectors of child health, firearm safety must be an essential part of our anticipatory guidance.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

*Wording suggestions adapted from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/recommendations/clinicians.

I’m not going to get rich off Mike.

Of course, I’m not going to get rich off anyone, nor do I want to. I’m not here to rip anyone off.

Mike goes back with me, roughly 23 years.

He was born with cerebral palsy and refractory seizures. His birth mother gave him up quickly, and he was adopted by a couple who knew what they were getting into (to me that constitutes sainthood).

Over the years Mike has done his best to buck the odds. He’s tried to stay employed, in spite of his physical limitations, working variously as a janitor, grocery courtesy clerk, and store greeter. He tells me that he can still work and wants to, even with having to rely on public transportation.

By the time he came to me he’d been through several neurologists and even more failed epilepsy drugs. His brain MRI and EEGs showed multifocal seizures from numerous inoperable cortical heterotopias.

I dabbled with a few newer drugs at the time for him, without success. Finally, I reached for the neurological equivalent of unstable dynamite – Felbatol (felbamate).

As it often does, it worked. One of my attendings in training (you, Bob) told me it was the home-run drug. When nothing else worked, it might – but you had to handle it carefully.

Fortunately, after 23 years, that hasn’t happened. Mike’s labs have looked good. His seizures have dropped from several a week to a few per year.

Ten years ago Mike had to change insurance to one I don’t take, and had me forward his records to another neurologist. That office told him they don’t handle Felbatol. As did another. And another.

Mike, understandably, doesn’t want to change meds. This is the only drug that’s given him a decent quality of life, and let him have a job. That’s pretty important to him.

So, I see him for free now, once or twice a year. Sometimes he offers me a token payment of $5-$10, but I turn it down. He needs it more than I do, for bus fair to my office if nothing else.

I’m sure some would be critical of me, saying that I should be more open to new drugs and treatments. I am, believe me. But Mike can’t afford many of them, or the loss of work they’d entail if his seizures worsen. He doesn’t want to take that chance, and I don’t blame him.

Of course, none of us can see everyone for free. In fact, he’s the only one I do. I’m not greedy, but I also have to pay my rent, staff, and mortgage.

But taking money from Mike, who’s come up on the short end of the stick in so many ways, doesn’t seem right. I can’t do it, and really don’t want to.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not going to get rich off Mike.

Of course, I’m not going to get rich off anyone, nor do I want to. I’m not here to rip anyone off.

Mike goes back with me, roughly 23 years.

He was born with cerebral palsy and refractory seizures. His birth mother gave him up quickly, and he was adopted by a couple who knew what they were getting into (to me that constitutes sainthood).

Over the years Mike has done his best to buck the odds. He’s tried to stay employed, in spite of his physical limitations, working variously as a janitor, grocery courtesy clerk, and store greeter. He tells me that he can still work and wants to, even with having to rely on public transportation.

By the time he came to me he’d been through several neurologists and even more failed epilepsy drugs. His brain MRI and EEGs showed multifocal seizures from numerous inoperable cortical heterotopias.

I dabbled with a few newer drugs at the time for him, without success. Finally, I reached for the neurological equivalent of unstable dynamite – Felbatol (felbamate).

As it often does, it worked. One of my attendings in training (you, Bob) told me it was the home-run drug. When nothing else worked, it might – but you had to handle it carefully.

Fortunately, after 23 years, that hasn’t happened. Mike’s labs have looked good. His seizures have dropped from several a week to a few per year.

Ten years ago Mike had to change insurance to one I don’t take, and had me forward his records to another neurologist. That office told him they don’t handle Felbatol. As did another. And another.

Mike, understandably, doesn’t want to change meds. This is the only drug that’s given him a decent quality of life, and let him have a job. That’s pretty important to him.

So, I see him for free now, once or twice a year. Sometimes he offers me a token payment of $5-$10, but I turn it down. He needs it more than I do, for bus fair to my office if nothing else.

I’m sure some would be critical of me, saying that I should be more open to new drugs and treatments. I am, believe me. But Mike can’t afford many of them, or the loss of work they’d entail if his seizures worsen. He doesn’t want to take that chance, and I don’t blame him.

Of course, none of us can see everyone for free. In fact, he’s the only one I do. I’m not greedy, but I also have to pay my rent, staff, and mortgage.

But taking money from Mike, who’s come up on the short end of the stick in so many ways, doesn’t seem right. I can’t do it, and really don’t want to.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not going to get rich off Mike.

Of course, I’m not going to get rich off anyone, nor do I want to. I’m not here to rip anyone off.

Mike goes back with me, roughly 23 years.

He was born with cerebral palsy and refractory seizures. His birth mother gave him up quickly, and he was adopted by a couple who knew what they were getting into (to me that constitutes sainthood).

Over the years Mike has done his best to buck the odds. He’s tried to stay employed, in spite of his physical limitations, working variously as a janitor, grocery courtesy clerk, and store greeter. He tells me that he can still work and wants to, even with having to rely on public transportation.

By the time he came to me he’d been through several neurologists and even more failed epilepsy drugs. His brain MRI and EEGs showed multifocal seizures from numerous inoperable cortical heterotopias.

I dabbled with a few newer drugs at the time for him, without success. Finally, I reached for the neurological equivalent of unstable dynamite – Felbatol (felbamate).

As it often does, it worked. One of my attendings in training (you, Bob) told me it was the home-run drug. When nothing else worked, it might – but you had to handle it carefully.

Fortunately, after 23 years, that hasn’t happened. Mike’s labs have looked good. His seizures have dropped from several a week to a few per year.

Ten years ago Mike had to change insurance to one I don’t take, and had me forward his records to another neurologist. That office told him they don’t handle Felbatol. As did another. And another.

Mike, understandably, doesn’t want to change meds. This is the only drug that’s given him a decent quality of life, and let him have a job. That’s pretty important to him.

So, I see him for free now, once or twice a year. Sometimes he offers me a token payment of $5-$10, but I turn it down. He needs it more than I do, for bus fair to my office if nothing else.

I’m sure some would be critical of me, saying that I should be more open to new drugs and treatments. I am, believe me. But Mike can’t afford many of them, or the loss of work they’d entail if his seizures worsen. He doesn’t want to take that chance, and I don’t blame him.

Of course, none of us can see everyone for free. In fact, he’s the only one I do. I’m not greedy, but I also have to pay my rent, staff, and mortgage.

But taking money from Mike, who’s come up on the short end of the stick in so many ways, doesn’t seem right. I can’t do it, and really don’t want to.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.