User login
Canadian Task Force recommendation on screening for postpartum depression misses the mark
Postpartum/perinatal depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, with a prevalence of 10%-15% based on multiple studies over the last 2 decades. Over those same 2 decades, there has been growing interest and motivation across the country – from small community hospitals to major academic centers – to promote screening. Such screening is integrated into obstetrical practices, typically using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), the most widely used validated screen for PPD globally.
As mentioned in previous columns, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for PPD in 2016, which includes screening women at highest risk, and both acutely treating and preventing PPD.
Since then, screening women for a common clinical problem like PPD has been widely adopted by clinicians representing a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary care. Providers who are engaged in the treatment of postpartum women – obstetricians, psychiatrists, doulas, lactation consultants, facilitators of postpartum support groups, and advocacy groups among others – are included.
An open question and one of great concern recently to our group and others has been what happens after screening. It is clear that identification of PPD per se is not necessarily a challenge, and we have multiple effective treatments from antidepressants to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy to cognitive-behavioral interventions. There is also a growing number of digital applications aimed at mitigation of depressive symptoms in women with postpartum major depressive disorder. One unanswered question is how to engage women after identification of PPD and how to facilitate access to care in a way that maximizes the likelihood that women who actually are suffering from PPD get adequate treatment.
The “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression. This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well?
With that backdrop, it is surprising that the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has recently recommended against screening with systematic questionnaires, noting that benefits were unclear and not a particular advantage relative to standard practice. The recommendation carries an assumption that standard practice involves queries about mental health. While the task force continues to recommend screening for PPD, their recommendation against screening with a standardized questionnaire represents a bold, sweeping, if not myopic view.
While the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care made their recommendation based on a single randomized controlled trial with the assumption that women were getting mental health counseling, and that women liked getting mental health engagement around their depression, that is not a uniform part of practice. Thus, it is puzzling why the task force would make the recommendation based on such sparse data.
The way to optimize access to care and referral systems for women who are suffering from PPD is not to remove a part of the system that’s already working. Well-validated questionnaires such as the EPDS are easy to administer and are routinely integrated into the electronic health systems records of both small and large centers. These questionnaires are an inexpensive way to increase the likelihood that women get identified and referred for a spectrum of potentially helpful interventions.
PPD is also easy to treat with medications and a wide spectrum of nonpharmacologic interventions. Novel interventions are also being explored to maximize access for women with postpartum mood and anxiety disorders such as peer-delivered behavioral activation and cognitive-behavioral therapy, which could be community based and implemented from urban to rural settings across the United States.
What may need the greatest study is the path to accessing effective treatments and resources for these women and this problem has prompted our group to explore these issues in our more recent investigations. Better understanding of those factors that limit access to mental health providers with expertise in perinatal mental health to the logistical issues of navigating the health care system for sleep-deprived new moms and their families demands greater attention and clearer answers.
The whole field has an obligation to postpartum women to figure out the amalgam of practitioners, resources, and platforms that need to be used to engage women so that they get effective treatment – because we have effective treatments. But the solution to improving perinatal mental health outcomes, unlike the approach of our colleagues in Canada, is not to be found in abandoning questionnaire-based screening, but in identifying the best ways to prevent PPD and to maximize access to care.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
Postpartum/perinatal depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, with a prevalence of 10%-15% based on multiple studies over the last 2 decades. Over those same 2 decades, there has been growing interest and motivation across the country – from small community hospitals to major academic centers – to promote screening. Such screening is integrated into obstetrical practices, typically using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), the most widely used validated screen for PPD globally.
As mentioned in previous columns, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for PPD in 2016, which includes screening women at highest risk, and both acutely treating and preventing PPD.
Since then, screening women for a common clinical problem like PPD has been widely adopted by clinicians representing a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary care. Providers who are engaged in the treatment of postpartum women – obstetricians, psychiatrists, doulas, lactation consultants, facilitators of postpartum support groups, and advocacy groups among others – are included.
An open question and one of great concern recently to our group and others has been what happens after screening. It is clear that identification of PPD per se is not necessarily a challenge, and we have multiple effective treatments from antidepressants to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy to cognitive-behavioral interventions. There is also a growing number of digital applications aimed at mitigation of depressive symptoms in women with postpartum major depressive disorder. One unanswered question is how to engage women after identification of PPD and how to facilitate access to care in a way that maximizes the likelihood that women who actually are suffering from PPD get adequate treatment.
The “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression. This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well?
With that backdrop, it is surprising that the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has recently recommended against screening with systematic questionnaires, noting that benefits were unclear and not a particular advantage relative to standard practice. The recommendation carries an assumption that standard practice involves queries about mental health. While the task force continues to recommend screening for PPD, their recommendation against screening with a standardized questionnaire represents a bold, sweeping, if not myopic view.
While the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care made their recommendation based on a single randomized controlled trial with the assumption that women were getting mental health counseling, and that women liked getting mental health engagement around their depression, that is not a uniform part of practice. Thus, it is puzzling why the task force would make the recommendation based on such sparse data.
The way to optimize access to care and referral systems for women who are suffering from PPD is not to remove a part of the system that’s already working. Well-validated questionnaires such as the EPDS are easy to administer and are routinely integrated into the electronic health systems records of both small and large centers. These questionnaires are an inexpensive way to increase the likelihood that women get identified and referred for a spectrum of potentially helpful interventions.
PPD is also easy to treat with medications and a wide spectrum of nonpharmacologic interventions. Novel interventions are also being explored to maximize access for women with postpartum mood and anxiety disorders such as peer-delivered behavioral activation and cognitive-behavioral therapy, which could be community based and implemented from urban to rural settings across the United States.
What may need the greatest study is the path to accessing effective treatments and resources for these women and this problem has prompted our group to explore these issues in our more recent investigations. Better understanding of those factors that limit access to mental health providers with expertise in perinatal mental health to the logistical issues of navigating the health care system for sleep-deprived new moms and their families demands greater attention and clearer answers.
The whole field has an obligation to postpartum women to figure out the amalgam of practitioners, resources, and platforms that need to be used to engage women so that they get effective treatment – because we have effective treatments. But the solution to improving perinatal mental health outcomes, unlike the approach of our colleagues in Canada, is not to be found in abandoning questionnaire-based screening, but in identifying the best ways to prevent PPD and to maximize access to care.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
Postpartum/perinatal depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, with a prevalence of 10%-15% based on multiple studies over the last 2 decades. Over those same 2 decades, there has been growing interest and motivation across the country – from small community hospitals to major academic centers – to promote screening. Such screening is integrated into obstetrical practices, typically using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), the most widely used validated screen for PPD globally.
As mentioned in previous columns, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for PPD in 2016, which includes screening women at highest risk, and both acutely treating and preventing PPD.
Since then, screening women for a common clinical problem like PPD has been widely adopted by clinicians representing a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary care. Providers who are engaged in the treatment of postpartum women – obstetricians, psychiatrists, doulas, lactation consultants, facilitators of postpartum support groups, and advocacy groups among others – are included.
An open question and one of great concern recently to our group and others has been what happens after screening. It is clear that identification of PPD per se is not necessarily a challenge, and we have multiple effective treatments from antidepressants to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy to cognitive-behavioral interventions. There is also a growing number of digital applications aimed at mitigation of depressive symptoms in women with postpartum major depressive disorder. One unanswered question is how to engage women after identification of PPD and how to facilitate access to care in a way that maximizes the likelihood that women who actually are suffering from PPD get adequate treatment.
The “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression. This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well?
With that backdrop, it is surprising that the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has recently recommended against screening with systematic questionnaires, noting that benefits were unclear and not a particular advantage relative to standard practice. The recommendation carries an assumption that standard practice involves queries about mental health. While the task force continues to recommend screening for PPD, their recommendation against screening with a standardized questionnaire represents a bold, sweeping, if not myopic view.
While the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care made their recommendation based on a single randomized controlled trial with the assumption that women were getting mental health counseling, and that women liked getting mental health engagement around their depression, that is not a uniform part of practice. Thus, it is puzzling why the task force would make the recommendation based on such sparse data.
The way to optimize access to care and referral systems for women who are suffering from PPD is not to remove a part of the system that’s already working. Well-validated questionnaires such as the EPDS are easy to administer and are routinely integrated into the electronic health systems records of both small and large centers. These questionnaires are an inexpensive way to increase the likelihood that women get identified and referred for a spectrum of potentially helpful interventions.
PPD is also easy to treat with medications and a wide spectrum of nonpharmacologic interventions. Novel interventions are also being explored to maximize access for women with postpartum mood and anxiety disorders such as peer-delivered behavioral activation and cognitive-behavioral therapy, which could be community based and implemented from urban to rural settings across the United States.
What may need the greatest study is the path to accessing effective treatments and resources for these women and this problem has prompted our group to explore these issues in our more recent investigations. Better understanding of those factors that limit access to mental health providers with expertise in perinatal mental health to the logistical issues of navigating the health care system for sleep-deprived new moms and their families demands greater attention and clearer answers.
The whole field has an obligation to postpartum women to figure out the amalgam of practitioners, resources, and platforms that need to be used to engage women so that they get effective treatment – because we have effective treatments. But the solution to improving perinatal mental health outcomes, unlike the approach of our colleagues in Canada, is not to be found in abandoning questionnaire-based screening, but in identifying the best ways to prevent PPD and to maximize access to care.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
The loss of letters
My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.
My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.
Upon my skinny, adaptable desk the other day sat a white envelope that was hand addressed to me. It was postmarked more than 2 weeks before as it had been waylaid in Endocrinology before being couriered to the rightful recipient. It had not been opened. Nor did I have any way to do so gracefully. I tore it apart with a fat finger while clicking through path reports that just arrived in my inbox.
Dear Dr. Benabio,
Pat
. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had.
Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.
My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.
Upon my skinny, adaptable desk the other day sat a white envelope that was hand addressed to me. It was postmarked more than 2 weeks before as it had been waylaid in Endocrinology before being couriered to the rightful recipient. It had not been opened. Nor did I have any way to do so gracefully. I tore it apart with a fat finger while clicking through path reports that just arrived in my inbox.
Dear Dr. Benabio,
Pat
. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had.
Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.
My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.
Upon my skinny, adaptable desk the other day sat a white envelope that was hand addressed to me. It was postmarked more than 2 weeks before as it had been waylaid in Endocrinology before being couriered to the rightful recipient. It had not been opened. Nor did I have any way to do so gracefully. I tore it apart with a fat finger while clicking through path reports that just arrived in my inbox.
Dear Dr. Benabio,
Pat
. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had.
Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].
How to talk with patients in ways that help them feel heard and understood
How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?
Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
Practice intent listening
When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.
When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.
It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
Use terminology that patients understand
Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.
Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.
It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”
Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
Be comfortable saying you don’t know
Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.
Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms
This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.
Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?
Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
Practice intent listening
When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.
When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.
It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
Use terminology that patients understand
Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.
Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.
It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”
Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
Be comfortable saying you don’t know
Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.
Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms
This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.
Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?
Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
Practice intent listening
When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.
When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.
It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
Use terminology that patients understand
Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.
Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.
It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”
Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
Be comfortable saying you don’t know
Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.
Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms
This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.
Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
A toddler presents with a dark line on a fingernail
Given the over 1-year history of an unchanging longitudinal band of pigment without extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds or any other nail findings, the most likely diagnosis is benign longitudinal melanonychia.
Longitudinal melanonychia, also known as melanonychia striata, describes a brown to black streak of pigment extending from the nail matrix to the free edge of the nail.1,2
This disorder can occur secondary to a wide variety of benign and pathologic causes including lentigines, nevi, melanoma, chronic trauma, inflammatory skin diseases, systemic diseases, iatrogenic causes, and genetic syndromes.3 In melanocytic causes of longitudinal melanonychia, either melanocytic activation or hyperplasia drive pigmentary development leading to the brown to black band seen in the nail.4 Benign causes of longitudinal melanonychia include benign melanocyte activation, lentigo, and benign nevus.1
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for longitudinal melanonychia can include a wide variety of local and systemic causes. For our discussion, we will limit our differential to other locally involved disorders of the nail including subungual melanoma, subungual hematoma, onychomycosis, and glomus tumor.
Subungual melanoma is a rare subtype of acral lentiginous melanoma that most often presents as longitudinal melanonychia. Subungual melanoma is more common in those aged 50-70 years, individuals with personal or family history of melanoma or dysplastic nevus syndrome, and persons with African American, Native American, and Asian descent. Longitudinal melanonychia features that can be concerning for subungual melanoma include the presence of multiple colors, width greater than or equal to 3 mm, blurry borders, rapid increase in size, and extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds (Hutchinson’s sign). Biopsy is required to make the diagnosis of subungual melanoma but is not necessary for melanonychia without atypical features.
Treatment of subungual melanoma depends on disease stage and can range from wide local excision of the nail apparatus to amputation of the affected digit and management with a medical oncologist. Given the absence of concerning neoplastic findings or personal or family history of melanoma, subungual melanoma is unlikely in this patient.
Subungual hematoma is an accumulation of blood underneath the nail plate that is typically the result of acute or chronic trauma to the distal phalanx. It can present as purple, red, pink, brown, or black discoloration under the nail plate and is most commonly found on the first toe. With acute trauma, pain is usually present upon initial injury. Subungual hematomas typically resolve on their own with normal nail growth. The absence of a history of trauma or pain, and the linear appearance of the lesion in our patient are inconsistent with a subungual hematoma.
Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nail caused by dermatophytes, nondermatophytes, or yeasts. It may present with longitudinal melanonychia; however, it more often presents with other nail abnormalities such as nail thickening, yellow discoloration, onycholysis, splitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, and nail plate destruction, which are not present in this patient. Furthermore, onychomycosis is more common in adults than children. Diagnosis is usually made with potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparations, histopathologic examination of nail clippings with a periodic acid-Schiff stain, fungal culture, or PCR.
Glomus tumor is a rare, benign neoplasm originating from cells of the glomus body. It is often found in the subungual region, in addition to other areas rich in glomus bodies such as the fingertips, palms, wrists, and forearms. Subungual glomus tumors present as a red, purple, or blueish lesions under the nail plate. Distal notching or an overlying longitudinal fissure may be present. Subungual glomus tumors are typically associated with pinpoint tenderness, paroxysmal pain, and cold sensitivity, features that are not present in our patient. The history and examination of our patient are much more consistent with benign longitudinal melanonychia.
It appears that melanoma associated with longitudinal melanonychia is very rare in children. According to one review published in 2020, only 12 cases of pediatric subungual melanoma have been reported.5 Recent series have observed longitudinal melanonychia in large sets of children, with findings that demonstrate that the vast majority of longitudinal melanonychia either stops progressing or regresses. These investigations therefore recommend serial observation of longitudinal melanonychia except in rare circumstances.6,7
Given the lack of troubling findings or concerning history, our patient was managed with observation. On follow-up 6 months later, he was found to have no change in his nail pigmentation.
Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Ms. Sui is a research associate in the department of dermatology, division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Mannava KA et al. Hand Surg. 2013;18(1):133-9.
2. Leung AKC et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58(11):1239-45.
3. Andre J and Lateur N. Dermatol Clin. 2006;24(3):329-39.
4. Lee DK and Lipner SR. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):694-712.
5. Smith RJ and Rubin AI. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32(4):506-15. .
6. Matsui Y et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(4):946-8.
7. Lee JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(2):366-72.
Given the over 1-year history of an unchanging longitudinal band of pigment without extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds or any other nail findings, the most likely diagnosis is benign longitudinal melanonychia.
Longitudinal melanonychia, also known as melanonychia striata, describes a brown to black streak of pigment extending from the nail matrix to the free edge of the nail.1,2
This disorder can occur secondary to a wide variety of benign and pathologic causes including lentigines, nevi, melanoma, chronic trauma, inflammatory skin diseases, systemic diseases, iatrogenic causes, and genetic syndromes.3 In melanocytic causes of longitudinal melanonychia, either melanocytic activation or hyperplasia drive pigmentary development leading to the brown to black band seen in the nail.4 Benign causes of longitudinal melanonychia include benign melanocyte activation, lentigo, and benign nevus.1
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for longitudinal melanonychia can include a wide variety of local and systemic causes. For our discussion, we will limit our differential to other locally involved disorders of the nail including subungual melanoma, subungual hematoma, onychomycosis, and glomus tumor.
Subungual melanoma is a rare subtype of acral lentiginous melanoma that most often presents as longitudinal melanonychia. Subungual melanoma is more common in those aged 50-70 years, individuals with personal or family history of melanoma or dysplastic nevus syndrome, and persons with African American, Native American, and Asian descent. Longitudinal melanonychia features that can be concerning for subungual melanoma include the presence of multiple colors, width greater than or equal to 3 mm, blurry borders, rapid increase in size, and extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds (Hutchinson’s sign). Biopsy is required to make the diagnosis of subungual melanoma but is not necessary for melanonychia without atypical features.
Treatment of subungual melanoma depends on disease stage and can range from wide local excision of the nail apparatus to amputation of the affected digit and management with a medical oncologist. Given the absence of concerning neoplastic findings or personal or family history of melanoma, subungual melanoma is unlikely in this patient.
Subungual hematoma is an accumulation of blood underneath the nail plate that is typically the result of acute or chronic trauma to the distal phalanx. It can present as purple, red, pink, brown, or black discoloration under the nail plate and is most commonly found on the first toe. With acute trauma, pain is usually present upon initial injury. Subungual hematomas typically resolve on their own with normal nail growth. The absence of a history of trauma or pain, and the linear appearance of the lesion in our patient are inconsistent with a subungual hematoma.
Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nail caused by dermatophytes, nondermatophytes, or yeasts. It may present with longitudinal melanonychia; however, it more often presents with other nail abnormalities such as nail thickening, yellow discoloration, onycholysis, splitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, and nail plate destruction, which are not present in this patient. Furthermore, onychomycosis is more common in adults than children. Diagnosis is usually made with potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparations, histopathologic examination of nail clippings with a periodic acid-Schiff stain, fungal culture, or PCR.
Glomus tumor is a rare, benign neoplasm originating from cells of the glomus body. It is often found in the subungual region, in addition to other areas rich in glomus bodies such as the fingertips, palms, wrists, and forearms. Subungual glomus tumors present as a red, purple, or blueish lesions under the nail plate. Distal notching or an overlying longitudinal fissure may be present. Subungual glomus tumors are typically associated with pinpoint tenderness, paroxysmal pain, and cold sensitivity, features that are not present in our patient. The history and examination of our patient are much more consistent with benign longitudinal melanonychia.
It appears that melanoma associated with longitudinal melanonychia is very rare in children. According to one review published in 2020, only 12 cases of pediatric subungual melanoma have been reported.5 Recent series have observed longitudinal melanonychia in large sets of children, with findings that demonstrate that the vast majority of longitudinal melanonychia either stops progressing or regresses. These investigations therefore recommend serial observation of longitudinal melanonychia except in rare circumstances.6,7
Given the lack of troubling findings or concerning history, our patient was managed with observation. On follow-up 6 months later, he was found to have no change in his nail pigmentation.
Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Ms. Sui is a research associate in the department of dermatology, division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Mannava KA et al. Hand Surg. 2013;18(1):133-9.
2. Leung AKC et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58(11):1239-45.
3. Andre J and Lateur N. Dermatol Clin. 2006;24(3):329-39.
4. Lee DK and Lipner SR. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):694-712.
5. Smith RJ and Rubin AI. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32(4):506-15. .
6. Matsui Y et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(4):946-8.
7. Lee JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(2):366-72.
Given the over 1-year history of an unchanging longitudinal band of pigment without extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds or any other nail findings, the most likely diagnosis is benign longitudinal melanonychia.
Longitudinal melanonychia, also known as melanonychia striata, describes a brown to black streak of pigment extending from the nail matrix to the free edge of the nail.1,2
This disorder can occur secondary to a wide variety of benign and pathologic causes including lentigines, nevi, melanoma, chronic trauma, inflammatory skin diseases, systemic diseases, iatrogenic causes, and genetic syndromes.3 In melanocytic causes of longitudinal melanonychia, either melanocytic activation or hyperplasia drive pigmentary development leading to the brown to black band seen in the nail.4 Benign causes of longitudinal melanonychia include benign melanocyte activation, lentigo, and benign nevus.1
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis for longitudinal melanonychia can include a wide variety of local and systemic causes. For our discussion, we will limit our differential to other locally involved disorders of the nail including subungual melanoma, subungual hematoma, onychomycosis, and glomus tumor.
Subungual melanoma is a rare subtype of acral lentiginous melanoma that most often presents as longitudinal melanonychia. Subungual melanoma is more common in those aged 50-70 years, individuals with personal or family history of melanoma or dysplastic nevus syndrome, and persons with African American, Native American, and Asian descent. Longitudinal melanonychia features that can be concerning for subungual melanoma include the presence of multiple colors, width greater than or equal to 3 mm, blurry borders, rapid increase in size, and extension to the proximal or lateral nailfolds (Hutchinson’s sign). Biopsy is required to make the diagnosis of subungual melanoma but is not necessary for melanonychia without atypical features.
Treatment of subungual melanoma depends on disease stage and can range from wide local excision of the nail apparatus to amputation of the affected digit and management with a medical oncologist. Given the absence of concerning neoplastic findings or personal or family history of melanoma, subungual melanoma is unlikely in this patient.
Subungual hematoma is an accumulation of blood underneath the nail plate that is typically the result of acute or chronic trauma to the distal phalanx. It can present as purple, red, pink, brown, or black discoloration under the nail plate and is most commonly found on the first toe. With acute trauma, pain is usually present upon initial injury. Subungual hematomas typically resolve on their own with normal nail growth. The absence of a history of trauma or pain, and the linear appearance of the lesion in our patient are inconsistent with a subungual hematoma.
Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nail caused by dermatophytes, nondermatophytes, or yeasts. It may present with longitudinal melanonychia; however, it more often presents with other nail abnormalities such as nail thickening, yellow discoloration, onycholysis, splitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, and nail plate destruction, which are not present in this patient. Furthermore, onychomycosis is more common in adults than children. Diagnosis is usually made with potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparations, histopathologic examination of nail clippings with a periodic acid-Schiff stain, fungal culture, or PCR.
Glomus tumor is a rare, benign neoplasm originating from cells of the glomus body. It is often found in the subungual region, in addition to other areas rich in glomus bodies such as the fingertips, palms, wrists, and forearms. Subungual glomus tumors present as a red, purple, or blueish lesions under the nail plate. Distal notching or an overlying longitudinal fissure may be present. Subungual glomus tumors are typically associated with pinpoint tenderness, paroxysmal pain, and cold sensitivity, features that are not present in our patient. The history and examination of our patient are much more consistent with benign longitudinal melanonychia.
It appears that melanoma associated with longitudinal melanonychia is very rare in children. According to one review published in 2020, only 12 cases of pediatric subungual melanoma have been reported.5 Recent series have observed longitudinal melanonychia in large sets of children, with findings that demonstrate that the vast majority of longitudinal melanonychia either stops progressing or regresses. These investigations therefore recommend serial observation of longitudinal melanonychia except in rare circumstances.6,7
Given the lack of troubling findings or concerning history, our patient was managed with observation. On follow-up 6 months later, he was found to have no change in his nail pigmentation.
Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; Ms. Sui is a research associate in the department of dermatology, division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology; and Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, all at the University of California and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. They have no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Mannava KA et al. Hand Surg. 2013;18(1):133-9.
2. Leung AKC et al. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58(11):1239-45.
3. Andre J and Lateur N. Dermatol Clin. 2006;24(3):329-39.
4. Lee DK and Lipner SR. Ann Med. 2022;54(1):694-712.
5. Smith RJ and Rubin AI. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020;32(4):506-15. .
6. Matsui Y et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(4):946-8.
7. Lee JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87(2):366-72.
Examination findings reveal a 2-mm brown longitudinal band on the radial aspect of the right thumbnail that does not extend into the proximal or lateral nailfolds. The rest of the skin and nail exam is unremarkable.
Oncologists may be too quick to refer patients to palliative care
I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.
Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.
There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
When should a patient be referred to palliative care?
Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.
For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.
But don’t get me wrong.
Palliative care for all?
In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.
The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.
This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.
In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.
Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?
I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.
A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.
At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.
Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.
I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.
Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.
There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
When should a patient be referred to palliative care?
Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.
For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.
But don’t get me wrong.
Palliative care for all?
In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.
The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.
This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.
In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.
Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?
I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.
A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.
At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.
Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.
I recently met Jane, a 53-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer. She was referred to me by the breast oncology team, which routinely refers all metastatic patients to our palliative care clinic.
Clocking in at under 20 minutes, my consultation with Jane might have been one of my shortest on record. Not only had the breast oncology team already addressed Jane’s symptoms, which mainly consisted of hot flashes and joint pain attributable to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, but they had already started planning ahead for the future of her illness. Jane had completed an advance directive and had a realistic and hopeful perspective on how her illness would progress. She understood the goal of her treatment was to “keep the cancer asleep,” as she put it, and she was very clear about her own goals: to live long enough to see her granddaughter graduate from high school in 2 years and to take a long-awaited trip to Australia later in 2023.
There wasn’t much for me to do. In fact, I daresay that Jane really did not need to see a palliative care specialist because the primary palliative care she was receiving from the breast oncology team was superb. Jane was receiving excellent symptom management from a nurse practitioner and oncologist, plus a social worker provided her with coping strategies. She was already having conversations with her primary medical team and her family about what to expect in the future and how to plan ahead for all possible outcomes.
When should a patient be referred to palliative care?
Integrating palliative care into routine oncologic care need not always require the time and skill of a palliative care team for every patient. Oncology providers can provide basic palliative care services without consulting a palliative care specialist.
For example, if a primary care doctor tried to refer every patient with hypertension to cardiology, the cardiologist would probably say that primary care should be able to handle basic hypertension management. In my experience from working in an oncology clinic for the past 9 years, I’ve found that oncology providers don’t need to refer every advanced cancer patient to our palliative care program. Most oncologists have good communication skills and are more than capable of managing symptoms for patients.
But don’t get me wrong.
Palliative care for all?
In 2010, Jennifer S. Temel MD, published a landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine that demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life and mood in patients with metastatic lung cancer who received concurrent palliative care. After the study was published many voices inside oncology and palliative care began to advocate for a “palliative care for all” approach to patients with metastatic disease. But this is often interpreted as “specialty palliative care for all,” rather than its original intended meaning that all patients with metastatic disease receive the essential elements of palliative care (biopsychosocial symptom support and conversations about goals of care) either through their primary oncology teams or, if needed, specialty palliative care teams.
The fact is that most specialty palliative care clinics do not have the manpower to meet the needs of all patients with advanced cancers, much less all patients living with serious illness. A main goal of integrating palliative care into routine outpatient health care has always been (and in my opinion, should continue to be) to enhance the primary palliative care skills of specialists, such as oncologists and cardiologists, who care for some of our sickest patients.
This could take many forms. For one, it can be helpful to screen patients for palliative care needs. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening for all patients as a condition of accreditation. Distress screening using a validated tool such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer can differentiate patients who have minimal distress and may not need much additional support beyond what is provided by their oncology team from those whose distress feels unmanageable and overwhelming.
In terms of primary palliative care symptom management, most oncology teams I work with are comfortable prescribing basic medications for pain, nausea, constipation, and anxiety. They’re also comfortable referring oncology patients for nutrition needs while undergoing chemotherapy as well as to social work and spiritual care for emotional support and counseling.
Oncology teams should continually work on communications skills. They should use “Ask, Tell, Ask” to elicit prognostic awareness, convey critical information, and assess for recall and understanding at pivotal points in the cancer journey, such as when the disease progresses or the patient’s clinical condition changes. They should practice a normalizing script they can use to introduce advance care planning to their patients in the first few visits. When I meet with a patient for the first time, I usually begin by asking if they have prepared an advanced directive. If not, I ask if they’ve thought about who will make medical decisions for them should the need arise. If the patient has documented in writing their preference for care in an emergency situation, I ask for a copy for their chart.
When should patients be referred to a specialty palliative care program?
I tell our oncology teams to involve me after they have tried to intervene, but unsuccessfully because of the patient having intractable symptoms, such as pain, or the disease is not responding to treatments. Or, because there are significant communication or health literacy barriers. Or, because there are challenging family dynamics that are impeding progress in establishing goals of care.
A physician should refer to specialty palliative care when there are multiple comorbid conditions that impact a patient’s prognosis and ability to tolerate treatments. These patients will need detailed symptom management and nuanced conversations about the delicate balance of maintaining quality of life and trying to address their malignancy while also avoiding treatments that may do more harm than good.
At the end of the day, all patients with serious illnesses deserve a palliative care approach to their care from all of their clinicians, not just from the palliative care team. By continuously honing and implementing primary palliative care skills, oncology teams can feel empowered to meet the needs of their patients themselves, strengthening their bond with their patients making truly patient-centered care much more likely.
Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.
The Respect for Marriage Act: How this law supports the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ youth
Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.1 Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.2
LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.3 As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.
Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.4 In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.
Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.5
Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.6 It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.7
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.8
The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.9
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.
Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”10 While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.
A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.11
As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.
Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Resources
Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf
Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248
American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/
References
1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.
2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.
3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.
4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.
5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.
6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.
7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.
8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.
9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.
10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.
11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.
Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.1 Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.2
LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.3 As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.
Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.4 In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.
Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.5
Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.6 It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.7
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.8
The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.9
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.
Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”10 While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.
A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.11
As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.
Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Resources
Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf
Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248
American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/
References
1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.
2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.
3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.
4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.
5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.
6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.
7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.
8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.
9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.
10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.
11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.
Childhood and adolescence are periods of life with rapid growth and development in which the psychosocial factors of one’s environment can have a profound effect on health. There is increasing evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can have significant negative effects on long-term health with effects persisting into subsequent generations.1 Youth themselves, however, often do not have the voice, ability, or political power to advocate for safe and more supportive environments that are essential to their well-being. Thus, advocacy has been central to the profession of pediatrics since its inception, where providers can partner with their patients, families, and communities to push for changes in the environments in which youth live and grow.2
LGBTQ+ youth are known to be at increased risk for ACEs because of the stress that comes from being part of a minority group and the discrimination they experience by their families, communities, and society at large. These factors within their environments have been shown to be associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, sexually transmitted infections, and homelessness.3 As with other health outcomes that have been linked to the social determinants of health, these disparities are not inevitable and could be greatly improved upon through advocacy and changes in the environments of LGBTQ+ youth.
Marriage equality (the recognition that same-sex couples have the same legal right to marry as opposite-sex couples) has been shown to be not only a political issue, but one that affects health. The debates surrounding marriage equality have contributed to minority stress by questioning the validity of same-sex relationships and assigning them less value relative to opposite-sex relationships.4 In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which federally defined marriage as being legally recognized only between opposite-sex couples.
Individual states then continued the marriage equality debate by passing individual state laws either allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. During this time, it was shown that, in states where same-sex marriage was legally prohibited, LGBTQ+ adults reported significantly higher rates of generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, any mood disorder, and psychiatric comorbidity when compared with states without a legal ban on same-sex marriage.5
Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, it was shown that state policies recognizing same-sex marriage were associated with a 7% relative reduction in suicide attempts reported by adolescent sexual minority students compared with before these policies.6 It was also shown that children with same-sex parents were overall less likely to have private health insurance, but this disparity was improved in states that legally recognized same-sex marriage and allowed second-parent adoptions.7
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, requiring the federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court further ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, requiring that all states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These rulings were associated with a decrease in reported levels of stigma over time and increased reported levels of family support, particularly for those in same-sex relationships.8
The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 13, 2022. This law officially repeals DOMA and requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory.9
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn the 2015 marriage equality decision, individual state laws ensuring or banning same-sex marriage would again be in effect. However, the RFMA ensures that all states continue to recognize same-sex marriages performed in any U.S. state or territory (even if that state itself bans same-sex marriage). While we do not yet have any studies or data regarding the effect of the RFMA on public health, we can expect positive effects by drawing on the previous evidence on the effect of marriage equality and its effect on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. By establishing marriage equality in the United States, our government institutions are affirming the relationships and identities of those in same-sex relationships, with the potential effect of helping to destigmatize the LGBTQ+ community.
Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that pediatricians “support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children,” acknowledging that “legislative initiatives assuring legal status equivalent to marriage for gay and lesbian partners … can also attend to providing security and permanence for the children of those partnerships.”10 While changes in legal marriage equality are likely to have a positive effect on those within the LGBTQ+ community, it should also be understood that this will not solve all of the psychosocial effects and resultant health disparities that these children face.
A recent scoping review highlights that, as the result of marriage equality progress, sexual minority adults have reported increased social acceptance and reduced stigma across individual, community, and societal levels, but that sexual minority stigma continues to persist across all levels.11
As pediatricians, we can continue to support LGBTQ+ patients and parents by providing care in a safe and affirming environment in which families understand and embrace the healthy development of gender identity and sexuality in an open and destigmatized manner. Delivering care using this approach in and of itself can be seen as advocacy to promote health and well-being within minoritized populations. Pediatricians are also encouraged to become engaged in local and national advocacy initiatives to have a broader effect in the fight for health equity in minority populations, including LGBTQ+ families and youth.
Pediatricians should work with their patients, families, and communities to advocate for structural change needed to address the social determinants of health for optimal growth and development.
Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Resources
Bright Futures – Promoting Healthy Development of Sexuality and Gender Identity (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/BF_HealthySexualityGenderIdentity_Tipsheet.pdf
Bright Futures – Implementing Social Determinants of Health Into Health Supervision Visits (Implementation Tip Sheet): https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/Bright%20Futures/BF_IntegrateSDoH_Tipsheet.pdf?_ga=2.214227031.1330574154.1673910248-58875083.1673910248
American Academy of Pediatrics – Advocacy Website: https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/
References
1. Hughes K et al. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(8):e356-66.
2. Camero K and Javier JR. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2023;70:43-51.
3. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021;48:179-89.
4. Buffie WC. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):986-90.
5. Hatzenbuehler ML et al. Am J Public Health. 2010;100:452-9.
6. Raifman J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(4):350-6.
7. Gonzales G and Blewett LA. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):703-11.
8. Ogolsky BG et al. J Fam Psychol. 2019;33(4):422-32.
9. Library of Congress. H.R.8404 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act. 2022 Dec 13. www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text.
10. Perrin EC and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Pediatrics. 2002;109(2):341-4.
11. Drabble LA et al. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0249125.
Unintended consequences of perfectly good programs and policies
Some of our worst decisions seemed like really good ideas at the time. We wouldn’t make them otherwise; but often we fall into the unintended consequence of “the cure being worse than the poison.” We have seen this when government is trying to fix a problem, often an emotionally charged problem, without considering the long-term consequences of the “fix.” We have seen the unintended consequences of certain health care policies and programs lead to abuse and negative downstream effects on the same population that they were intended to protect.
It has been postulated that unintended consequences fall into a framework that’s “based upon level of knowledge and the scope for avoidance.” Essentially, that means these consequences fall into one of four categories: knowable and avoidable, knowable and unavoidable, unknowable and avoidable, and unknowable and unavoidable.
What category do the following policies fall into?
Pharmacy benefit managers’ safe harbor from the Anti-Kickback Statute
Let’s start with the “safe harbor” from the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) for payments from drug companies to health insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The AKS was created in 1972 and its “main purpose is to protect patients and the federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by curtailing the corrupting influence of money on health care decisions.” During the 1990s, a number of safe harbor provisions under the AKS were instituted for certain payments to health insurance companies, PBMs, and other providers. The thinking was that these payments needed a safe harbor because, although they might meet the statutory definition of “kickbacks,” they were beneficial because they would reduce the cost of care and, more specifically, the prices of drugs.
While well-intentioned, those safe harbors now protect a system of such perverse incentives that patients are whipsawed back and forth onto drugs that are the most profitable for the PBMs, who create the annual list of insurance covered drugs (i.e., the formulary). It is clear now that protected kickbacks ($$), in the form of rebates and fees paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to PBMs, determine what drugs will be on the formulary. PBMs then use utilization management tools such as step therapy to force patients to take those drugs first. Consequently, safe harbor protection from the AKS allows manufacturers to buy market share at the expense of patient’s health. Because these protected kickbacks are based on a percentage of the list price of the drugs, PBMs profit more from higher priced drugs, which PBMs call the lowest cost medications (for them, that is). These bids from various manufacturers can change over the course of a year, allowing PBMs to change formulary coverage (even mid-year) and nonmedically switch stable patients to the drug that is the most profitable. Much of this happens as a result of the unintended consequence of this particular safe harbor from the AKS. Ironically, the safe harbor has helped to create the very behavior that the law was supposed to prevent and has harmed the patients it was supposed to protect. Health care decisions are being corrupted by the influence of profits allowed by safe harbor from the AKS.
340B drug program lacks oversight
Helping hospitals pay for care of the indigent: What could go wrong with that? The 340B Drug Pricing Program was created in 1992 to help low-income patients have better access to outpatient medications. The program requires drug companies to offer deep discounts to safety-net providers and qualified “disproportionate share hospitals,” which have a minimum percentage threshold of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The idea was that these qualified entities would pass these savings through to their low-income patients who needed the medications. Sounds like a great idea!
Apparently, there is a lot of money to be made under the 340B program because what started in 1992 with 90 covered entities had expanded by 2017 to more than 12,000 covered entities. The program became a profit center in part because reimbursement for 340B-acquired drugs far exceeds the acquisition costs. Over the years, in order to increase profits, qualified entities, such as disproportionate share hospitals, added for-profit contracted outpatient pharmacies, significantly increasing the amount of 340B drugs dispensed to commercial patients. From 2010 to 2020, the number of contract pharmacy arrangements increased from 2,000 to over 100,000, massively increasing profits for the qualified hospitals and their for-profit contracted pharmacies, which included a number of Fortune 25 companies.
Unfortunately, there is no oversight of 340B programs, and there are no requirements that the 340B drug profits be used for charitable care. In fact, nearly 10 years ago, two experts stated in Health Affairs that, “our findings support the criticism that the 340B program is being converted from one that serves vulnerable patient populations to one that enriches hospitals and their affiliated clinics.” In spite of the immense profits generated at 340B hospitals, an analysis by Avalere Health revealed that “65 percent of 340B hospitals provide less charity care than the national average for all short-term acute care hospitals, including for-profit hospitals.”
I have seen this dynamic at work in my own community in south Louisiana. There is a major expanding 340B hospital system that refuses Medicaid patients into its clinics once the hospital has reached its minimum disproportionate share of Medicaid patients. Our community has many young female African American patients with lupus, many of whom are covered by Medicaid. Even though this 340B hospital system has rheumatology fellows, it closes its rheumatology clinic doors to patients with lupus who have Medicaid as soon as it has reached its 11.75% of Medicaid patients. Clearly, this is an abuse of a program instituted specifically to take care of those in need – and here in our community, it creates inequitable access to rheumatologic care for patients with lupus.
The statute that created 340B specifically listed certain nonhospital providers who need – and should continue to receive – access to 340B discounts, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers and others. There are many deserving safety net providers and special disease clinics that are taking care of the truly needy and deserve to get the 340B highly discounted drug pricing. However, many so-called nonprofit hospital systems are spreading into wealthy neighborhoods with contracted pharmacies making large profits without caring for those in need. Five years ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that more oversight of the 340B program was needed, but that still hasn’t happened. The combination of vague statutory language and a lack of oversight has led to unintended consequences of fraud and abuse of the system, with indigent patients not realizing the benefit of the steep discounts, being sued when they can’t pay their bills, and even turned away from clinics when the qualified hospital reaches it mandated minimum of Medicaid patients.
Knowable and avoidable?
Should it have been known that these abuses would result from these policies and programs? And if so, could guardrails have been put in place from the start to avoid these abuses? Maybe the answers to these questions are irrelevant: All we can do now is fix what is not working, which will require changes and oversight to ensure that the safe harbor policy and 340B drug discount program are achieving the desired ends. At this point, unfortunately, it is clear that they’re not. In fact, it looks like they have enabled “profits over patients” all the way.
As recently stated by Dr. Megan Ranney of Brown University: “In this country, we continually forget that the profit motive is not sufficient for the public’s health.” Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But now we need to take off our blinders, see what is happening, and act to finally put “patients over profits.”
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Some of our worst decisions seemed like really good ideas at the time. We wouldn’t make them otherwise; but often we fall into the unintended consequence of “the cure being worse than the poison.” We have seen this when government is trying to fix a problem, often an emotionally charged problem, without considering the long-term consequences of the “fix.” We have seen the unintended consequences of certain health care policies and programs lead to abuse and negative downstream effects on the same population that they were intended to protect.
It has been postulated that unintended consequences fall into a framework that’s “based upon level of knowledge and the scope for avoidance.” Essentially, that means these consequences fall into one of four categories: knowable and avoidable, knowable and unavoidable, unknowable and avoidable, and unknowable and unavoidable.
What category do the following policies fall into?
Pharmacy benefit managers’ safe harbor from the Anti-Kickback Statute
Let’s start with the “safe harbor” from the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) for payments from drug companies to health insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The AKS was created in 1972 and its “main purpose is to protect patients and the federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by curtailing the corrupting influence of money on health care decisions.” During the 1990s, a number of safe harbor provisions under the AKS were instituted for certain payments to health insurance companies, PBMs, and other providers. The thinking was that these payments needed a safe harbor because, although they might meet the statutory definition of “kickbacks,” they were beneficial because they would reduce the cost of care and, more specifically, the prices of drugs.
While well-intentioned, those safe harbors now protect a system of such perverse incentives that patients are whipsawed back and forth onto drugs that are the most profitable for the PBMs, who create the annual list of insurance covered drugs (i.e., the formulary). It is clear now that protected kickbacks ($$), in the form of rebates and fees paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to PBMs, determine what drugs will be on the formulary. PBMs then use utilization management tools such as step therapy to force patients to take those drugs first. Consequently, safe harbor protection from the AKS allows manufacturers to buy market share at the expense of patient’s health. Because these protected kickbacks are based on a percentage of the list price of the drugs, PBMs profit more from higher priced drugs, which PBMs call the lowest cost medications (for them, that is). These bids from various manufacturers can change over the course of a year, allowing PBMs to change formulary coverage (even mid-year) and nonmedically switch stable patients to the drug that is the most profitable. Much of this happens as a result of the unintended consequence of this particular safe harbor from the AKS. Ironically, the safe harbor has helped to create the very behavior that the law was supposed to prevent and has harmed the patients it was supposed to protect. Health care decisions are being corrupted by the influence of profits allowed by safe harbor from the AKS.
340B drug program lacks oversight
Helping hospitals pay for care of the indigent: What could go wrong with that? The 340B Drug Pricing Program was created in 1992 to help low-income patients have better access to outpatient medications. The program requires drug companies to offer deep discounts to safety-net providers and qualified “disproportionate share hospitals,” which have a minimum percentage threshold of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The idea was that these qualified entities would pass these savings through to their low-income patients who needed the medications. Sounds like a great idea!
Apparently, there is a lot of money to be made under the 340B program because what started in 1992 with 90 covered entities had expanded by 2017 to more than 12,000 covered entities. The program became a profit center in part because reimbursement for 340B-acquired drugs far exceeds the acquisition costs. Over the years, in order to increase profits, qualified entities, such as disproportionate share hospitals, added for-profit contracted outpatient pharmacies, significantly increasing the amount of 340B drugs dispensed to commercial patients. From 2010 to 2020, the number of contract pharmacy arrangements increased from 2,000 to over 100,000, massively increasing profits for the qualified hospitals and their for-profit contracted pharmacies, which included a number of Fortune 25 companies.
Unfortunately, there is no oversight of 340B programs, and there are no requirements that the 340B drug profits be used for charitable care. In fact, nearly 10 years ago, two experts stated in Health Affairs that, “our findings support the criticism that the 340B program is being converted from one that serves vulnerable patient populations to one that enriches hospitals and their affiliated clinics.” In spite of the immense profits generated at 340B hospitals, an analysis by Avalere Health revealed that “65 percent of 340B hospitals provide less charity care than the national average for all short-term acute care hospitals, including for-profit hospitals.”
I have seen this dynamic at work in my own community in south Louisiana. There is a major expanding 340B hospital system that refuses Medicaid patients into its clinics once the hospital has reached its minimum disproportionate share of Medicaid patients. Our community has many young female African American patients with lupus, many of whom are covered by Medicaid. Even though this 340B hospital system has rheumatology fellows, it closes its rheumatology clinic doors to patients with lupus who have Medicaid as soon as it has reached its 11.75% of Medicaid patients. Clearly, this is an abuse of a program instituted specifically to take care of those in need – and here in our community, it creates inequitable access to rheumatologic care for patients with lupus.
The statute that created 340B specifically listed certain nonhospital providers who need – and should continue to receive – access to 340B discounts, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers and others. There are many deserving safety net providers and special disease clinics that are taking care of the truly needy and deserve to get the 340B highly discounted drug pricing. However, many so-called nonprofit hospital systems are spreading into wealthy neighborhoods with contracted pharmacies making large profits without caring for those in need. Five years ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that more oversight of the 340B program was needed, but that still hasn’t happened. The combination of vague statutory language and a lack of oversight has led to unintended consequences of fraud and abuse of the system, with indigent patients not realizing the benefit of the steep discounts, being sued when they can’t pay their bills, and even turned away from clinics when the qualified hospital reaches it mandated minimum of Medicaid patients.
Knowable and avoidable?
Should it have been known that these abuses would result from these policies and programs? And if so, could guardrails have been put in place from the start to avoid these abuses? Maybe the answers to these questions are irrelevant: All we can do now is fix what is not working, which will require changes and oversight to ensure that the safe harbor policy and 340B drug discount program are achieving the desired ends. At this point, unfortunately, it is clear that they’re not. In fact, it looks like they have enabled “profits over patients” all the way.
As recently stated by Dr. Megan Ranney of Brown University: “In this country, we continually forget that the profit motive is not sufficient for the public’s health.” Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But now we need to take off our blinders, see what is happening, and act to finally put “patients over profits.”
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Some of our worst decisions seemed like really good ideas at the time. We wouldn’t make them otherwise; but often we fall into the unintended consequence of “the cure being worse than the poison.” We have seen this when government is trying to fix a problem, often an emotionally charged problem, without considering the long-term consequences of the “fix.” We have seen the unintended consequences of certain health care policies and programs lead to abuse and negative downstream effects on the same population that they were intended to protect.
It has been postulated that unintended consequences fall into a framework that’s “based upon level of knowledge and the scope for avoidance.” Essentially, that means these consequences fall into one of four categories: knowable and avoidable, knowable and unavoidable, unknowable and avoidable, and unknowable and unavoidable.
What category do the following policies fall into?
Pharmacy benefit managers’ safe harbor from the Anti-Kickback Statute
Let’s start with the “safe harbor” from the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) for payments from drug companies to health insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The AKS was created in 1972 and its “main purpose is to protect patients and the federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by curtailing the corrupting influence of money on health care decisions.” During the 1990s, a number of safe harbor provisions under the AKS were instituted for certain payments to health insurance companies, PBMs, and other providers. The thinking was that these payments needed a safe harbor because, although they might meet the statutory definition of “kickbacks,” they were beneficial because they would reduce the cost of care and, more specifically, the prices of drugs.
While well-intentioned, those safe harbors now protect a system of such perverse incentives that patients are whipsawed back and forth onto drugs that are the most profitable for the PBMs, who create the annual list of insurance covered drugs (i.e., the formulary). It is clear now that protected kickbacks ($$), in the form of rebates and fees paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to PBMs, determine what drugs will be on the formulary. PBMs then use utilization management tools such as step therapy to force patients to take those drugs first. Consequently, safe harbor protection from the AKS allows manufacturers to buy market share at the expense of patient’s health. Because these protected kickbacks are based on a percentage of the list price of the drugs, PBMs profit more from higher priced drugs, which PBMs call the lowest cost medications (for them, that is). These bids from various manufacturers can change over the course of a year, allowing PBMs to change formulary coverage (even mid-year) and nonmedically switch stable patients to the drug that is the most profitable. Much of this happens as a result of the unintended consequence of this particular safe harbor from the AKS. Ironically, the safe harbor has helped to create the very behavior that the law was supposed to prevent and has harmed the patients it was supposed to protect. Health care decisions are being corrupted by the influence of profits allowed by safe harbor from the AKS.
340B drug program lacks oversight
Helping hospitals pay for care of the indigent: What could go wrong with that? The 340B Drug Pricing Program was created in 1992 to help low-income patients have better access to outpatient medications. The program requires drug companies to offer deep discounts to safety-net providers and qualified “disproportionate share hospitals,” which have a minimum percentage threshold of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The idea was that these qualified entities would pass these savings through to their low-income patients who needed the medications. Sounds like a great idea!
Apparently, there is a lot of money to be made under the 340B program because what started in 1992 with 90 covered entities had expanded by 2017 to more than 12,000 covered entities. The program became a profit center in part because reimbursement for 340B-acquired drugs far exceeds the acquisition costs. Over the years, in order to increase profits, qualified entities, such as disproportionate share hospitals, added for-profit contracted outpatient pharmacies, significantly increasing the amount of 340B drugs dispensed to commercial patients. From 2010 to 2020, the number of contract pharmacy arrangements increased from 2,000 to over 100,000, massively increasing profits for the qualified hospitals and their for-profit contracted pharmacies, which included a number of Fortune 25 companies.
Unfortunately, there is no oversight of 340B programs, and there are no requirements that the 340B drug profits be used for charitable care. In fact, nearly 10 years ago, two experts stated in Health Affairs that, “our findings support the criticism that the 340B program is being converted from one that serves vulnerable patient populations to one that enriches hospitals and their affiliated clinics.” In spite of the immense profits generated at 340B hospitals, an analysis by Avalere Health revealed that “65 percent of 340B hospitals provide less charity care than the national average for all short-term acute care hospitals, including for-profit hospitals.”
I have seen this dynamic at work in my own community in south Louisiana. There is a major expanding 340B hospital system that refuses Medicaid patients into its clinics once the hospital has reached its minimum disproportionate share of Medicaid patients. Our community has many young female African American patients with lupus, many of whom are covered by Medicaid. Even though this 340B hospital system has rheumatology fellows, it closes its rheumatology clinic doors to patients with lupus who have Medicaid as soon as it has reached its 11.75% of Medicaid patients. Clearly, this is an abuse of a program instituted specifically to take care of those in need – and here in our community, it creates inequitable access to rheumatologic care for patients with lupus.
The statute that created 340B specifically listed certain nonhospital providers who need – and should continue to receive – access to 340B discounts, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers and others. There are many deserving safety net providers and special disease clinics that are taking care of the truly needy and deserve to get the 340B highly discounted drug pricing. However, many so-called nonprofit hospital systems are spreading into wealthy neighborhoods with contracted pharmacies making large profits without caring for those in need. Five years ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated that more oversight of the 340B program was needed, but that still hasn’t happened. The combination of vague statutory language and a lack of oversight has led to unintended consequences of fraud and abuse of the system, with indigent patients not realizing the benefit of the steep discounts, being sued when they can’t pay their bills, and even turned away from clinics when the qualified hospital reaches it mandated minimum of Medicaid patients.
Knowable and avoidable?
Should it have been known that these abuses would result from these policies and programs? And if so, could guardrails have been put in place from the start to avoid these abuses? Maybe the answers to these questions are irrelevant: All we can do now is fix what is not working, which will require changes and oversight to ensure that the safe harbor policy and 340B drug discount program are achieving the desired ends. At this point, unfortunately, it is clear that they’re not. In fact, it looks like they have enabled “profits over patients” all the way.
As recently stated by Dr. Megan Ranney of Brown University: “In this country, we continually forget that the profit motive is not sufficient for the public’s health.” Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But now we need to take off our blinders, see what is happening, and act to finally put “patients over profits.”
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at [email protected].
Diagnosing rare disorders
When I was a resident (back in the Cretaceous era), the idea of autoimmune encephalitis was just beginning to take hold. It was kind of like Bigfoot. A few reports, vague articles, the occasional sighting of what may or may not be a case. …
Unlike Bigfoot, however, the evidence quickly added up until there was no question that such a disorder existed. Then disorder became disorders, and now it seems a few more types are added to the list each year.
This doesn’t change the fact that they’re still, in the grand scheme of general neurology, relatively rare, though no one questions that they exist.
Today people still wishfully take pictures of Bigfoot, but they turn out to be images of bears or other animals, or tricks of light and shadow.
This is an issue with human thought. Many times we see what we want to see, especially if it’s more interesting than a mundane alternative.
An autoimmune encephalitis article in the January 2023 issue of JAMA Neurology looked into this. On reviewing 393 patients diagnosed with the disorder, the researchers found that 27% of them actually didn’t have it at all. Such things as functional disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and primary psychiatric diagnoses were, instead, the culprits.
I’m not criticizing those who made an incorrect diagnosis. We all do. That’s the nature of medicine.
Which is worse? Missing the diagnosis entirely and not treating, or diagnosing a patient with something else and treating incorrectly? I guess it depends on the disease and nature of treatment.
Certainly, finding a case of autoimmune encephalitis is more interesting than, say toxic-metabolic encephalopathy from a bladder infection, just as getting a picture of Bigfoot is way more cool than one of a bear with mange.
But we need to be careful when faced with equivocal labs and data lest we read too much into them. There are too many gray zones in medicine to lead you astray. Not to say we won’t be.
But it’s not just rare diseases. In the early 1990s two different studies found that 24% of patients diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease were found to have something else on autopsy.
That was 30 years ago. Now we have DaT scans to help. Maybe our abilities as neurologists have also gotten better (though I don’t think the neurological exam has changed much since Charcot).
Our gadgets, labs, and treatments get better every year. We have tools available to us now that were unthinkable a generation ago. For that matter, they were unthinkable when I began my career.
But they don’t change the fact that human error never goes away. All of us are susceptible to it, and all of us make mistakes.
Such is the way of medicine now, and likely always. All we can do is our best and keep moving forward.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
When I was a resident (back in the Cretaceous era), the idea of autoimmune encephalitis was just beginning to take hold. It was kind of like Bigfoot. A few reports, vague articles, the occasional sighting of what may or may not be a case. …
Unlike Bigfoot, however, the evidence quickly added up until there was no question that such a disorder existed. Then disorder became disorders, and now it seems a few more types are added to the list each year.
This doesn’t change the fact that they’re still, in the grand scheme of general neurology, relatively rare, though no one questions that they exist.
Today people still wishfully take pictures of Bigfoot, but they turn out to be images of bears or other animals, or tricks of light and shadow.
This is an issue with human thought. Many times we see what we want to see, especially if it’s more interesting than a mundane alternative.
An autoimmune encephalitis article in the January 2023 issue of JAMA Neurology looked into this. On reviewing 393 patients diagnosed with the disorder, the researchers found that 27% of them actually didn’t have it at all. Such things as functional disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and primary psychiatric diagnoses were, instead, the culprits.
I’m not criticizing those who made an incorrect diagnosis. We all do. That’s the nature of medicine.
Which is worse? Missing the diagnosis entirely and not treating, or diagnosing a patient with something else and treating incorrectly? I guess it depends on the disease and nature of treatment.
Certainly, finding a case of autoimmune encephalitis is more interesting than, say toxic-metabolic encephalopathy from a bladder infection, just as getting a picture of Bigfoot is way more cool than one of a bear with mange.
But we need to be careful when faced with equivocal labs and data lest we read too much into them. There are too many gray zones in medicine to lead you astray. Not to say we won’t be.
But it’s not just rare diseases. In the early 1990s two different studies found that 24% of patients diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease were found to have something else on autopsy.
That was 30 years ago. Now we have DaT scans to help. Maybe our abilities as neurologists have also gotten better (though I don’t think the neurological exam has changed much since Charcot).
Our gadgets, labs, and treatments get better every year. We have tools available to us now that were unthinkable a generation ago. For that matter, they were unthinkable when I began my career.
But they don’t change the fact that human error never goes away. All of us are susceptible to it, and all of us make mistakes.
Such is the way of medicine now, and likely always. All we can do is our best and keep moving forward.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
When I was a resident (back in the Cretaceous era), the idea of autoimmune encephalitis was just beginning to take hold. It was kind of like Bigfoot. A few reports, vague articles, the occasional sighting of what may or may not be a case. …
Unlike Bigfoot, however, the evidence quickly added up until there was no question that such a disorder existed. Then disorder became disorders, and now it seems a few more types are added to the list each year.
This doesn’t change the fact that they’re still, in the grand scheme of general neurology, relatively rare, though no one questions that they exist.
Today people still wishfully take pictures of Bigfoot, but they turn out to be images of bears or other animals, or tricks of light and shadow.
This is an issue with human thought. Many times we see what we want to see, especially if it’s more interesting than a mundane alternative.
An autoimmune encephalitis article in the January 2023 issue of JAMA Neurology looked into this. On reviewing 393 patients diagnosed with the disorder, the researchers found that 27% of them actually didn’t have it at all. Such things as functional disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and primary psychiatric diagnoses were, instead, the culprits.
I’m not criticizing those who made an incorrect diagnosis. We all do. That’s the nature of medicine.
Which is worse? Missing the diagnosis entirely and not treating, or diagnosing a patient with something else and treating incorrectly? I guess it depends on the disease and nature of treatment.
Certainly, finding a case of autoimmune encephalitis is more interesting than, say toxic-metabolic encephalopathy from a bladder infection, just as getting a picture of Bigfoot is way more cool than one of a bear with mange.
But we need to be careful when faced with equivocal labs and data lest we read too much into them. There are too many gray zones in medicine to lead you astray. Not to say we won’t be.
But it’s not just rare diseases. In the early 1990s two different studies found that 24% of patients diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease were found to have something else on autopsy.
That was 30 years ago. Now we have DaT scans to help. Maybe our abilities as neurologists have also gotten better (though I don’t think the neurological exam has changed much since Charcot).
Our gadgets, labs, and treatments get better every year. We have tools available to us now that were unthinkable a generation ago. For that matter, they were unthinkable when I began my career.
But they don’t change the fact that human error never goes away. All of us are susceptible to it, and all of us make mistakes.
Such is the way of medicine now, and likely always. All we can do is our best and keep moving forward.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Pay an annual visit to your office
that your patients might see?
We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.
When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.
Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.
If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.
During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.
If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.
Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.
Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.
If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
that your patients might see?
We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.
When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.
Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.
If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.
During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.
If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.
Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.
Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.
If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
that your patients might see?
We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.
When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.
Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.
If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.
During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.
If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.
Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.
Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.
If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Buccal fat pad removal
The buccal fat pads, previously known as Bichat’s fat pads, were first described in 1802. Everyone has them and their size is predominantly related to genetics, but similar to other facial fat pockets, they can shrink or shift over time. Buccal fat pads are often resistant to weight loss and stubbornly persist because of a slower lipolytic rate than subcutaneous fat. Some patients with round facial shapes may seek removal of the midface volume to create a more angular cheek and jawline, which enhances the zygomatic prominence and mandibular angle, creating a more contoured face.
The buccal fat pad is a submuscular fat pad surrounded by a capsule that contains three lobes with four extensions. The anterior lobe rests in front of the anterior border of the masseter muscle. The intermediate lobe extends between the masseter and buccinator muscles. The posterior lobe extends between the temporal masticatory space. These pads range from 7-11 mL in volume and grow from ages 10 to 20 years, declining in size after age 20. Given their location in the central face, they contain a rich vascular supply and are surrounded by the facial nerves, salivary glands, the parotid gland, and muscles of mastication.
The aesthetic contour of the lower face is defined by the mandibular prominence, the masseter muscle, subcutaneous fat, and the buccal fat pad. Surgically, removal is a simple and safe procedure. Complications can include damage to the parotid gland, vessels, salivary duct, or facial nerve. Temporary numbness, swelling, and facial asymmetry are the most common complications.
Increasing popularity, controversy
Removal of the buccal fat pads has become popular because of celebrity media exposure, particularly among young women seeking a slim appearance to their face and jawlines. Although the procedure is relatively simple, there have been no long term studies evaluating the effects of buccal fat pad removal on facial aging.
The shrinking or shifting of fat that occurs with aging makes the removal of these fat pads in young women controversial because when removed, they cannot be effectively replaced. Shrinking of the fat pads with age, loss of midface volume, and solar elastosis can make the cheeks appear gaunt and “sucked in.”
An experienced surgeon will reduce and contour the fat pads – and will not completely remove them – to prevent a complete hollowing of the cheeks over time. Complete removal is not recommended and in men, overzealous removal in men can feminize the face.
In middle-aged men and women, the buccal fat pad can shift to the lower face and often drops below the angle of the mandible giving the appearance of jowls. Complete removal of the shifted buccal fat pad will help align the jawline; however, residual skin laxity is a complication and must be addressed to fully correct the jowls.
In my experience, the best approach to reducing buccal pads as an alternative to surgical removal is “melting” the buccal fat in a systematic, controlled manner over several sessions with either radiofrequency laser or deoxycholic acid injections. This slow, controlled method allows me to contour the cheeks appropriately in concordance with the patient’s anatomy. In younger patients or those with little skin laxity, I choose treatments with deoxycholic acid to remove the pads (which I also use to treat the jowls, as outlined in my 2020 column on treating the jowl overhang with deoxycholic acid).
In patients with more skin laxity, I perform sequential radiofrequency laser treatment over the fat pockets to simultaneously melt the fat pockets and tighten the overlying skin. Both of these methods often require three to six treatments. The controlled, cautious, treatments gradually shrink the fat pockets while preventing the overhollowing of the face.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Dubin B et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Feb;83(2):257-64
Jackson IT. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Jun;103(7):2059-60.
Matarasso A. Ann Plast Surg. 1991 May;26(5):413-8.
The buccal fat pads, previously known as Bichat’s fat pads, were first described in 1802. Everyone has them and their size is predominantly related to genetics, but similar to other facial fat pockets, they can shrink or shift over time. Buccal fat pads are often resistant to weight loss and stubbornly persist because of a slower lipolytic rate than subcutaneous fat. Some patients with round facial shapes may seek removal of the midface volume to create a more angular cheek and jawline, which enhances the zygomatic prominence and mandibular angle, creating a more contoured face.
The buccal fat pad is a submuscular fat pad surrounded by a capsule that contains three lobes with four extensions. The anterior lobe rests in front of the anterior border of the masseter muscle. The intermediate lobe extends between the masseter and buccinator muscles. The posterior lobe extends between the temporal masticatory space. These pads range from 7-11 mL in volume and grow from ages 10 to 20 years, declining in size after age 20. Given their location in the central face, they contain a rich vascular supply and are surrounded by the facial nerves, salivary glands, the parotid gland, and muscles of mastication.
The aesthetic contour of the lower face is defined by the mandibular prominence, the masseter muscle, subcutaneous fat, and the buccal fat pad. Surgically, removal is a simple and safe procedure. Complications can include damage to the parotid gland, vessels, salivary duct, or facial nerve. Temporary numbness, swelling, and facial asymmetry are the most common complications.
Increasing popularity, controversy
Removal of the buccal fat pads has become popular because of celebrity media exposure, particularly among young women seeking a slim appearance to their face and jawlines. Although the procedure is relatively simple, there have been no long term studies evaluating the effects of buccal fat pad removal on facial aging.
The shrinking or shifting of fat that occurs with aging makes the removal of these fat pads in young women controversial because when removed, they cannot be effectively replaced. Shrinking of the fat pads with age, loss of midface volume, and solar elastosis can make the cheeks appear gaunt and “sucked in.”
An experienced surgeon will reduce and contour the fat pads – and will not completely remove them – to prevent a complete hollowing of the cheeks over time. Complete removal is not recommended and in men, overzealous removal in men can feminize the face.
In middle-aged men and women, the buccal fat pad can shift to the lower face and often drops below the angle of the mandible giving the appearance of jowls. Complete removal of the shifted buccal fat pad will help align the jawline; however, residual skin laxity is a complication and must be addressed to fully correct the jowls.
In my experience, the best approach to reducing buccal pads as an alternative to surgical removal is “melting” the buccal fat in a systematic, controlled manner over several sessions with either radiofrequency laser or deoxycholic acid injections. This slow, controlled method allows me to contour the cheeks appropriately in concordance with the patient’s anatomy. In younger patients or those with little skin laxity, I choose treatments with deoxycholic acid to remove the pads (which I also use to treat the jowls, as outlined in my 2020 column on treating the jowl overhang with deoxycholic acid).
In patients with more skin laxity, I perform sequential radiofrequency laser treatment over the fat pockets to simultaneously melt the fat pockets and tighten the overlying skin. Both of these methods often require three to six treatments. The controlled, cautious, treatments gradually shrink the fat pockets while preventing the overhollowing of the face.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Dubin B et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Feb;83(2):257-64
Jackson IT. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Jun;103(7):2059-60.
Matarasso A. Ann Plast Surg. 1991 May;26(5):413-8.
The buccal fat pads, previously known as Bichat’s fat pads, were first described in 1802. Everyone has them and their size is predominantly related to genetics, but similar to other facial fat pockets, they can shrink or shift over time. Buccal fat pads are often resistant to weight loss and stubbornly persist because of a slower lipolytic rate than subcutaneous fat. Some patients with round facial shapes may seek removal of the midface volume to create a more angular cheek and jawline, which enhances the zygomatic prominence and mandibular angle, creating a more contoured face.
The buccal fat pad is a submuscular fat pad surrounded by a capsule that contains three lobes with four extensions. The anterior lobe rests in front of the anterior border of the masseter muscle. The intermediate lobe extends between the masseter and buccinator muscles. The posterior lobe extends between the temporal masticatory space. These pads range from 7-11 mL in volume and grow from ages 10 to 20 years, declining in size after age 20. Given their location in the central face, they contain a rich vascular supply and are surrounded by the facial nerves, salivary glands, the parotid gland, and muscles of mastication.
The aesthetic contour of the lower face is defined by the mandibular prominence, the masseter muscle, subcutaneous fat, and the buccal fat pad. Surgically, removal is a simple and safe procedure. Complications can include damage to the parotid gland, vessels, salivary duct, or facial nerve. Temporary numbness, swelling, and facial asymmetry are the most common complications.
Increasing popularity, controversy
Removal of the buccal fat pads has become popular because of celebrity media exposure, particularly among young women seeking a slim appearance to their face and jawlines. Although the procedure is relatively simple, there have been no long term studies evaluating the effects of buccal fat pad removal on facial aging.
The shrinking or shifting of fat that occurs with aging makes the removal of these fat pads in young women controversial because when removed, they cannot be effectively replaced. Shrinking of the fat pads with age, loss of midface volume, and solar elastosis can make the cheeks appear gaunt and “sucked in.”
An experienced surgeon will reduce and contour the fat pads – and will not completely remove them – to prevent a complete hollowing of the cheeks over time. Complete removal is not recommended and in men, overzealous removal in men can feminize the face.
In middle-aged men and women, the buccal fat pad can shift to the lower face and often drops below the angle of the mandible giving the appearance of jowls. Complete removal of the shifted buccal fat pad will help align the jawline; however, residual skin laxity is a complication and must be addressed to fully correct the jowls.
In my experience, the best approach to reducing buccal pads as an alternative to surgical removal is “melting” the buccal fat in a systematic, controlled manner over several sessions with either radiofrequency laser or deoxycholic acid injections. This slow, controlled method allows me to contour the cheeks appropriately in concordance with the patient’s anatomy. In younger patients or those with little skin laxity, I choose treatments with deoxycholic acid to remove the pads (which I also use to treat the jowls, as outlined in my 2020 column on treating the jowl overhang with deoxycholic acid).
In patients with more skin laxity, I perform sequential radiofrequency laser treatment over the fat pockets to simultaneously melt the fat pockets and tighten the overlying skin. Both of these methods often require three to six treatments. The controlled, cautious, treatments gradually shrink the fat pockets while preventing the overhollowing of the face.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Dubin B et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Feb;83(2):257-64
Jackson IT. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Jun;103(7):2059-60.
Matarasso A. Ann Plast Surg. 1991 May;26(5):413-8.