Alicia Ault

In April 2021, Express Scripts stopped covering low-volume bowel preparations in its National Preferred Formulary, a move that had the potential to affect many of the 75 million Americans covered by that pharmacy benefit manager’s programs, according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

For gastroenterologists and their patients, it was an action that added insult to injury. The COVID-19 pandemic had already led to shortages of various preps, causing many thousands of Americans to forego colonoscopies. One study estimated that there was a 95% decline in weekly colorectal cancer screenings in the first half of 2020.

Just as screenings were returning to prepandemic levels, the Express Scripts coverage change threatened to create a new barrier for those already hesitant, especially since the prep is what patients most loathe about colonoscopy, said the gastroenterologists interviewed for this story.

Almost a year later, not much has changed. Bowel prep shortages persist, and some insurers and pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies are restricting coverage of certain prescription preps or instituting higher copays.

Gastroenterologists are having to delay procedures and patients are canceling appointments; some never return.

“I and many of my colleagues are very concerned that we are going to see an increase in advanced colon polyps and colon cancer,” said Jennifer A. Christie, MD, professor of medicine in the digestive diseases division at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, and vice president of the ASGE.

Obstacles to getting the right prep “not only [delay] the care, but the negative outcomes could be horrible,” agreed Tauseef Ali, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma and a member of the American College of Gastroenterology’s board of governors.

For the majority of patients, a wait might not be an issue, said Christian Stevoff, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. But a delayed diagnosis would be significant for those with larger polyps or cancer in the colon, he said.

“It’s a major problem for those people that it does affect,” Dr. Stevoff told this news organization.

He noted that his practice had to delay around 3,000 procedures in 2020, and while they have since caught up, approximately 25% of cases are being delayed right now for a variety of reasons. Most of those are in patients deemed to be low risk, though, he said.
 

PBMs: ‘a parasitic infection to our health care system’

Shortages of preps have been a persistent headache, but restrictions such as those instituted by Express Scripts have become a bigger problem, said some gastroenterologists.

Express Scripts did have several exceptions to its prohibition on coverage of low-volume preps. First, it could be approved if the patient had failed with a polyethylene glycol (PEG)–based prep like GoLYTELY. It could also be approved if the patient had tried MoviPrep and failed, if MoviPrep was unavailable, or if the patient has phenylketonuria or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

Cigna-owned Express Scripts is one of three PBMs – along with CVS Caremark and OptumRX (owned by UnitedHealth Group) – that control 85% of prescription drug benefits in the United States, according to a 2019 investigation of the industry by the New York State Senate.

Express Scripts did not return requests for comment on its bowel prep coverage, and CVS Caremark declined to participate. A spokesperson for OptumRX told this news organization that the PBM provides bowel preps at “$0 cost-share” but only for health plan sponsors that are subject to Affordable Care Act regulations that require providing colonoscopies under such a payment structure. The company did not provide further information.

For some gastroenterologists, the anger toward PBMs is palpable. Dr. Ali calls PBMs “a parasitic infection to our health care system.”

“Keeping track of these bowel prep coverages has become a nightmare,” he said, noting that every payer seems to have its own preferred prep. “We have a dedicated nurse whose only job is to keep tabs on this, and she’s unable to because it’s just getting out of control.”

Some preps are contraindicated for patients, Dr. Ali said. Yet even in those cases, it’s difficult to get the alternatives covered. It often comes down to a joint effort by a pharmacist, the patient, and Dr. Ali’s office staff to get coverage for a medically necessary prep.

If it’s an emergency, Dr. Ali said, “either our patients bite the bullet and pay the price, or we have to come up with alternative solutions that may not lead to an optimal bowel preparation. It defeats the whole purpose of having a good bowel preparation and giving them a good outcome.”

He added that “there are a lot of patients who cancel their colonoscopies out of frustration,” because the bowel prep is not available or too expensive and that some patients choose to simply not reschedule.

Dr. Christie’s experience is similar. Sometimes patients must be rescheduled because “we could not get the prep in a timely fashion for them to be ready for their procedure.” Bringing back patients can be hard: They are busy, or they can’t get a ride, or time off work, or coverage for caregiving, she said. Ultimately, “some patients do decide to either defer or decline screening.”

The hassles also have the potential to exacerbate existing health disparities, she added.

Dr. Stevoff, the gastroenterologist at Northwestern, said cancellations are a concern, but to his knowledge, none of his patients have quit in frustration.

He said that because “most of the [preps] are equivalent to each other,” he often gives preference to what’s available.

He does tell patients that they may have a higher copay. For some that may be fine for what is only a once every 5- or 10-year payment. For others who cannot afford the cost, it may mean spending time trying to convince the insurer to pay for a prep that is not normally covered, he said.
 

A step backwards

Dr. Stevoff understands why payers might have preferred preps.

“As long as the outcomes are equivalent, I don’t think they’re going to be willing to pay for a prep that’s three or four times more expensive for a night of inconvenience for the patient,” he said.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said he’s mystified by moves to limit bowel preps.

“Having to do an end-run to figure out what preps we can get for a patient is a step backwards,” he said.

Douglas Rex, MD, distinguished professor emeritus of medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said it was dangerous to limit options.

“Trying to save relatively small amounts of money by restricting access to specific preps is seriously wrong-headed and a mistake,” he said. “If you keep the big picture in mind, we’re trying to keep people from getting colon cancer.”

Dr. Johnson also noted that a poor-quality prep might lead to a poor-quality exam, which is associated with not only reduced adenoma detection rates but also a shortened interval for a repeat exam, which just adds costs to the system.

“The whole impact of colon cancer screening is to discover polyps and remove them to prevent cancer,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

No rhyme or reason to ongoing shortages

Pandemic-related supply chain headaches have trickled down to bowel preps, which then lead to occasional delays in procedures.

“We have definitely seen shortages throughout most of the pandemic,” Dr. Rex said. At various times, he added, low-volume or high-volume prescription preps have not been available in all pharmacies or not available in certain pharmacies.

The spotty supplies have created a hassle and added costs because his office staff spends time making calls to find an available prep, he said.

Dr. Christie described similar issues at her practice, where the shortages have been “a significant challenge and issue.”

As of late January, some polyethylene glycol 3,350-based preps were still in short supply or had been discontinued, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Two companies – Teva and Lupin – did not provide a reason for the lack of product. However, ASHP said the companies anticipated being able to provide supplies in February.

Many PEG-based prescription products have been on back order for some time, said Dr. Johnson, who tries to avoid the higher-volume PEG-based preps in favor of low-volume preps that are more tolerable to patients.

The lack of information about a reason for the shortages has led to speculation.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, GoLYTELY, one of the more commonly used PEG-based preps, was not available at all, Dr. Ali said. It was his understanding that PEG was being used as an ingredient in COVID vaccines, which helped explain the shortage, at least initially.

Dr. Stevoff also heard this explanation but said he had come to believe it was an “urban myth,” and added that he “never got confirmation from any of the companies” that they couldn’t get PEG because it was being used for vaccines. He noted that shortages of some PEG-based preps have continued even though vaccine production has stabilized.
 

Over-the-counter alternatives can be ‘hit or miss’

With the price for all bowel preps – and co-pays – increasing in the last 2 years, some practices are directing patients on how to mix up their own using over-the-counter (OTC) ingredients, which is likely to be less expensive.

The out-of-pocket cost for a four-liter, high-volume PEG-based prep might be $35-$50, according to GoodRx. Alternatives such as Suprep (sodium/potassium/magnesium) run $110-$120, according to the website, and a sodium phosphate-based prep, such as OsmoPrep, runs close to $300.

The OTC prep uses MiraLAX (PEG-based but without additional electrolytes mixed in) and bisacodyl (Dulcolax). Johns Hopkins University, Cleveland Clinic, and Memorial Sloan Kettering, among many other institutions, have advised patients to use the OTC do-it-yourself preps. It is a split prep, using 238 grams of MiraLAX mixed with 64 ounces of water or a sports drink (for example, Gatorade). The day before the procedure, patients take 2 bisacodyl (5 mg) tablets, followed by four 8-ounce glasses of a MiraLAX/water mixture. The same regimen is followed the day of the procedure.

There are mixed results on how adequately the regimen cleans the colon. A 2014 meta-analysis found that the MiraLAX-based prep was inferior in terms of bowel cleansing to PEG-based formulations premixed with electrolyte solutions (PEG-ELS). There was no statistically significant difference in polyp detection between the two. In a 2011 analysis, researchers concluded that GoLYTELY was superior to MiraLAX in colon prep and adenoma detection.

The 2014 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Guidelines reported that the MiraLAX-based prep had less effective bowel preparation than 4-liter PEG-ELS solutions in at least one study but that it appeared to be more tolerable for patients and associated with few adverse events. More study of its safety is “warranted and desirable,” write the authors.

Even before the pandemic, Dr. Rex said his practice used the MiraLAX-based prep because it was less expensive, and “anecdotally it tends to be very well tolerated.”

However, he noted that the regimen is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“A lot of people don’t like to use non–FDA approved preps because they’re afraid of some liability if there is a complication,” Dr. Rex said.

Dr. Ali added that he has advised patients to use the OTC preps, but the results can be “hit or miss.”

Some patients can easily comply with the instructions and will have good results, but others may not have the education or understanding or may have underlying medical conditions that lessen the OTC formulation’s effectiveness in getting a good cleanout, said Dr. Ali.

Dr. Stevoff has occasionally used the OTC prep but agrees that not all patients will be able to follow the directions.

“The more complicated a process is, the more likely it is that somebody will make a mistake,” he said.

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

In April 2021, Express Scripts stopped covering low-volume bowel preparations in its National Preferred Formulary, a move that had the potential to affect many of the 75 million Americans covered by that pharmacy benefit manager’s programs, according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

For gastroenterologists and their patients, it was an action that added insult to injury. The COVID-19 pandemic had already led to shortages of various preps, causing many thousands of Americans to forego colonoscopies. One study estimated that there was a 95% decline in weekly colorectal cancer screenings in the first half of 2020.

Just as screenings were returning to prepandemic levels, the Express Scripts coverage change threatened to create a new barrier for those already hesitant, especially since the prep is what patients most loathe about colonoscopy, said the gastroenterologists interviewed for this story.

Almost a year later, not much has changed. Bowel prep shortages persist, and some insurers and pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies are restricting coverage of certain prescription preps or instituting higher copays.

Gastroenterologists are having to delay procedures and patients are canceling appointments; some never return.

“I and many of my colleagues are very concerned that we are going to see an increase in advanced colon polyps and colon cancer,” said Jennifer A. Christie, MD, professor of medicine in the digestive diseases division at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, and vice president of the ASGE.

Obstacles to getting the right prep “not only [delay] the care, but the negative outcomes could be horrible,” agreed Tauseef Ali, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma and a member of the American College of Gastroenterology’s board of governors.

For the majority of patients, a wait might not be an issue, said Christian Stevoff, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. But a delayed diagnosis would be significant for those with larger polyps or cancer in the colon, he said.

“It’s a major problem for those people that it does affect,” Dr. Stevoff told this news organization.

He noted that his practice had to delay around 3,000 procedures in 2020, and while they have since caught up, approximately 25% of cases are being delayed right now for a variety of reasons. Most of those are in patients deemed to be low risk, though, he said.
 

PBMs: ‘a parasitic infection to our health care system’

Shortages of preps have been a persistent headache, but restrictions such as those instituted by Express Scripts have become a bigger problem, said some gastroenterologists.

Express Scripts did have several exceptions to its prohibition on coverage of low-volume preps. First, it could be approved if the patient had failed with a polyethylene glycol (PEG)–based prep like GoLYTELY. It could also be approved if the patient had tried MoviPrep and failed, if MoviPrep was unavailable, or if the patient has phenylketonuria or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

Cigna-owned Express Scripts is one of three PBMs – along with CVS Caremark and OptumRX (owned by UnitedHealth Group) – that control 85% of prescription drug benefits in the United States, according to a 2019 investigation of the industry by the New York State Senate.

Express Scripts did not return requests for comment on its bowel prep coverage, and CVS Caremark declined to participate. A spokesperson for OptumRX told this news organization that the PBM provides bowel preps at “$0 cost-share” but only for health plan sponsors that are subject to Affordable Care Act regulations that require providing colonoscopies under such a payment structure. The company did not provide further information.

For some gastroenterologists, the anger toward PBMs is palpable. Dr. Ali calls PBMs “a parasitic infection to our health care system.”

“Keeping track of these bowel prep coverages has become a nightmare,” he said, noting that every payer seems to have its own preferred prep. “We have a dedicated nurse whose only job is to keep tabs on this, and she’s unable to because it’s just getting out of control.”

Some preps are contraindicated for patients, Dr. Ali said. Yet even in those cases, it’s difficult to get the alternatives covered. It often comes down to a joint effort by a pharmacist, the patient, and Dr. Ali’s office staff to get coverage for a medically necessary prep.

If it’s an emergency, Dr. Ali said, “either our patients bite the bullet and pay the price, or we have to come up with alternative solutions that may not lead to an optimal bowel preparation. It defeats the whole purpose of having a good bowel preparation and giving them a good outcome.”

He added that “there are a lot of patients who cancel their colonoscopies out of frustration,” because the bowel prep is not available or too expensive and that some patients choose to simply not reschedule.

Dr. Christie’s experience is similar. Sometimes patients must be rescheduled because “we could not get the prep in a timely fashion for them to be ready for their procedure.” Bringing back patients can be hard: They are busy, or they can’t get a ride, or time off work, or coverage for caregiving, she said. Ultimately, “some patients do decide to either defer or decline screening.”

The hassles also have the potential to exacerbate existing health disparities, she added.

Dr. Stevoff, the gastroenterologist at Northwestern, said cancellations are a concern, but to his knowledge, none of his patients have quit in frustration.

He said that because “most of the [preps] are equivalent to each other,” he often gives preference to what’s available.

He does tell patients that they may have a higher copay. For some that may be fine for what is only a once every 5- or 10-year payment. For others who cannot afford the cost, it may mean spending time trying to convince the insurer to pay for a prep that is not normally covered, he said.
 

A step backwards

Dr. Stevoff understands why payers might have preferred preps.

“As long as the outcomes are equivalent, I don’t think they’re going to be willing to pay for a prep that’s three or four times more expensive for a night of inconvenience for the patient,” he said.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said he’s mystified by moves to limit bowel preps.

“Having to do an end-run to figure out what preps we can get for a patient is a step backwards,” he said.

Douglas Rex, MD, distinguished professor emeritus of medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said it was dangerous to limit options.

“Trying to save relatively small amounts of money by restricting access to specific preps is seriously wrong-headed and a mistake,” he said. “If you keep the big picture in mind, we’re trying to keep people from getting colon cancer.”

Dr. Johnson also noted that a poor-quality prep might lead to a poor-quality exam, which is associated with not only reduced adenoma detection rates but also a shortened interval for a repeat exam, which just adds costs to the system.

“The whole impact of colon cancer screening is to discover polyps and remove them to prevent cancer,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

No rhyme or reason to ongoing shortages

Pandemic-related supply chain headaches have trickled down to bowel preps, which then lead to occasional delays in procedures.

“We have definitely seen shortages throughout most of the pandemic,” Dr. Rex said. At various times, he added, low-volume or high-volume prescription preps have not been available in all pharmacies or not available in certain pharmacies.

The spotty supplies have created a hassle and added costs because his office staff spends time making calls to find an available prep, he said.

Dr. Christie described similar issues at her practice, where the shortages have been “a significant challenge and issue.”

As of late January, some polyethylene glycol 3,350-based preps were still in short supply or had been discontinued, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Two companies – Teva and Lupin – did not provide a reason for the lack of product. However, ASHP said the companies anticipated being able to provide supplies in February.

Many PEG-based prescription products have been on back order for some time, said Dr. Johnson, who tries to avoid the higher-volume PEG-based preps in favor of low-volume preps that are more tolerable to patients.

The lack of information about a reason for the shortages has led to speculation.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, GoLYTELY, one of the more commonly used PEG-based preps, was not available at all, Dr. Ali said. It was his understanding that PEG was being used as an ingredient in COVID vaccines, which helped explain the shortage, at least initially.

Dr. Stevoff also heard this explanation but said he had come to believe it was an “urban myth,” and added that he “never got confirmation from any of the companies” that they couldn’t get PEG because it was being used for vaccines. He noted that shortages of some PEG-based preps have continued even though vaccine production has stabilized.
 

Over-the-counter alternatives can be ‘hit or miss’

With the price for all bowel preps – and co-pays – increasing in the last 2 years, some practices are directing patients on how to mix up their own using over-the-counter (OTC) ingredients, which is likely to be less expensive.

The out-of-pocket cost for a four-liter, high-volume PEG-based prep might be $35-$50, according to GoodRx. Alternatives such as Suprep (sodium/potassium/magnesium) run $110-$120, according to the website, and a sodium phosphate-based prep, such as OsmoPrep, runs close to $300.

The OTC prep uses MiraLAX (PEG-based but without additional electrolytes mixed in) and bisacodyl (Dulcolax). Johns Hopkins University, Cleveland Clinic, and Memorial Sloan Kettering, among many other institutions, have advised patients to use the OTC do-it-yourself preps. It is a split prep, using 238 grams of MiraLAX mixed with 64 ounces of water or a sports drink (for example, Gatorade). The day before the procedure, patients take 2 bisacodyl (5 mg) tablets, followed by four 8-ounce glasses of a MiraLAX/water mixture. The same regimen is followed the day of the procedure.

There are mixed results on how adequately the regimen cleans the colon. A 2014 meta-analysis found that the MiraLAX-based prep was inferior in terms of bowel cleansing to PEG-based formulations premixed with electrolyte solutions (PEG-ELS). There was no statistically significant difference in polyp detection between the two. In a 2011 analysis, researchers concluded that GoLYTELY was superior to MiraLAX in colon prep and adenoma detection.

The 2014 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Guidelines reported that the MiraLAX-based prep had less effective bowel preparation than 4-liter PEG-ELS solutions in at least one study but that it appeared to be more tolerable for patients and associated with few adverse events. More study of its safety is “warranted and desirable,” write the authors.

Even before the pandemic, Dr. Rex said his practice used the MiraLAX-based prep because it was less expensive, and “anecdotally it tends to be very well tolerated.”

However, he noted that the regimen is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“A lot of people don’t like to use non–FDA approved preps because they’re afraid of some liability if there is a complication,” Dr. Rex said.

Dr. Ali added that he has advised patients to use the OTC preps, but the results can be “hit or miss.”

Some patients can easily comply with the instructions and will have good results, but others may not have the education or understanding or may have underlying medical conditions that lessen the OTC formulation’s effectiveness in getting a good cleanout, said Dr. Ali.

Dr. Stevoff has occasionally used the OTC prep but agrees that not all patients will be able to follow the directions.

“The more complicated a process is, the more likely it is that somebody will make a mistake,” he said.

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

In April 2021, Express Scripts stopped covering low-volume bowel preparations in its National Preferred Formulary, a move that had the potential to affect many of the 75 million Americans covered by that pharmacy benefit manager’s programs, according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

For gastroenterologists and their patients, it was an action that added insult to injury. The COVID-19 pandemic had already led to shortages of various preps, causing many thousands of Americans to forego colonoscopies. One study estimated that there was a 95% decline in weekly colorectal cancer screenings in the first half of 2020.

Just as screenings were returning to prepandemic levels, the Express Scripts coverage change threatened to create a new barrier for those already hesitant, especially since the prep is what patients most loathe about colonoscopy, said the gastroenterologists interviewed for this story.

Almost a year later, not much has changed. Bowel prep shortages persist, and some insurers and pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies are restricting coverage of certain prescription preps or instituting higher copays.

Gastroenterologists are having to delay procedures and patients are canceling appointments; some never return.

“I and many of my colleagues are very concerned that we are going to see an increase in advanced colon polyps and colon cancer,” said Jennifer A. Christie, MD, professor of medicine in the digestive diseases division at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, and vice president of the ASGE.

Obstacles to getting the right prep “not only [delay] the care, but the negative outcomes could be horrible,” agreed Tauseef Ali, MD, clinical assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma and a member of the American College of Gastroenterology’s board of governors.

For the majority of patients, a wait might not be an issue, said Christian Stevoff, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. But a delayed diagnosis would be significant for those with larger polyps or cancer in the colon, he said.

“It’s a major problem for those people that it does affect,” Dr. Stevoff told this news organization.

He noted that his practice had to delay around 3,000 procedures in 2020, and while they have since caught up, approximately 25% of cases are being delayed right now for a variety of reasons. Most of those are in patients deemed to be low risk, though, he said.
 

PBMs: ‘a parasitic infection to our health care system’

Shortages of preps have been a persistent headache, but restrictions such as those instituted by Express Scripts have become a bigger problem, said some gastroenterologists.

Express Scripts did have several exceptions to its prohibition on coverage of low-volume preps. First, it could be approved if the patient had failed with a polyethylene glycol (PEG)–based prep like GoLYTELY. It could also be approved if the patient had tried MoviPrep and failed, if MoviPrep was unavailable, or if the patient has phenylketonuria or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.

Cigna-owned Express Scripts is one of three PBMs – along with CVS Caremark and OptumRX (owned by UnitedHealth Group) – that control 85% of prescription drug benefits in the United States, according to a 2019 investigation of the industry by the New York State Senate.

Express Scripts did not return requests for comment on its bowel prep coverage, and CVS Caremark declined to participate. A spokesperson for OptumRX told this news organization that the PBM provides bowel preps at “$0 cost-share” but only for health plan sponsors that are subject to Affordable Care Act regulations that require providing colonoscopies under such a payment structure. The company did not provide further information.

For some gastroenterologists, the anger toward PBMs is palpable. Dr. Ali calls PBMs “a parasitic infection to our health care system.”

“Keeping track of these bowel prep coverages has become a nightmare,” he said, noting that every payer seems to have its own preferred prep. “We have a dedicated nurse whose only job is to keep tabs on this, and she’s unable to because it’s just getting out of control.”

Some preps are contraindicated for patients, Dr. Ali said. Yet even in those cases, it’s difficult to get the alternatives covered. It often comes down to a joint effort by a pharmacist, the patient, and Dr. Ali’s office staff to get coverage for a medically necessary prep.

If it’s an emergency, Dr. Ali said, “either our patients bite the bullet and pay the price, or we have to come up with alternative solutions that may not lead to an optimal bowel preparation. It defeats the whole purpose of having a good bowel preparation and giving them a good outcome.”

He added that “there are a lot of patients who cancel their colonoscopies out of frustration,” because the bowel prep is not available or too expensive and that some patients choose to simply not reschedule.

Dr. Christie’s experience is similar. Sometimes patients must be rescheduled because “we could not get the prep in a timely fashion for them to be ready for their procedure.” Bringing back patients can be hard: They are busy, or they can’t get a ride, or time off work, or coverage for caregiving, she said. Ultimately, “some patients do decide to either defer or decline screening.”

The hassles also have the potential to exacerbate existing health disparities, she added.

Dr. Stevoff, the gastroenterologist at Northwestern, said cancellations are a concern, but to his knowledge, none of his patients have quit in frustration.

He said that because “most of the [preps] are equivalent to each other,” he often gives preference to what’s available.

He does tell patients that they may have a higher copay. For some that may be fine for what is only a once every 5- or 10-year payment. For others who cannot afford the cost, it may mean spending time trying to convince the insurer to pay for a prep that is not normally covered, he said.
 

A step backwards

Dr. Stevoff understands why payers might have preferred preps.

“As long as the outcomes are equivalent, I don’t think they’re going to be willing to pay for a prep that’s three or four times more expensive for a night of inconvenience for the patient,” he said.

David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said he’s mystified by moves to limit bowel preps.

“Having to do an end-run to figure out what preps we can get for a patient is a step backwards,” he said.

Douglas Rex, MD, distinguished professor emeritus of medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said it was dangerous to limit options.

“Trying to save relatively small amounts of money by restricting access to specific preps is seriously wrong-headed and a mistake,” he said. “If you keep the big picture in mind, we’re trying to keep people from getting colon cancer.”

Dr. Johnson also noted that a poor-quality prep might lead to a poor-quality exam, which is associated with not only reduced adenoma detection rates but also a shortened interval for a repeat exam, which just adds costs to the system.

“The whole impact of colon cancer screening is to discover polyps and remove them to prevent cancer,” Dr. Johnson said.
 

No rhyme or reason to ongoing shortages

Pandemic-related supply chain headaches have trickled down to bowel preps, which then lead to occasional delays in procedures.

“We have definitely seen shortages throughout most of the pandemic,” Dr. Rex said. At various times, he added, low-volume or high-volume prescription preps have not been available in all pharmacies or not available in certain pharmacies.

The spotty supplies have created a hassle and added costs because his office staff spends time making calls to find an available prep, he said.

Dr. Christie described similar issues at her practice, where the shortages have been “a significant challenge and issue.”

As of late January, some polyethylene glycol 3,350-based preps were still in short supply or had been discontinued, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Two companies – Teva and Lupin – did not provide a reason for the lack of product. However, ASHP said the companies anticipated being able to provide supplies in February.

Many PEG-based prescription products have been on back order for some time, said Dr. Johnson, who tries to avoid the higher-volume PEG-based preps in favor of low-volume preps that are more tolerable to patients.

The lack of information about a reason for the shortages has led to speculation.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, GoLYTELY, one of the more commonly used PEG-based preps, was not available at all, Dr. Ali said. It was his understanding that PEG was being used as an ingredient in COVID vaccines, which helped explain the shortage, at least initially.

Dr. Stevoff also heard this explanation but said he had come to believe it was an “urban myth,” and added that he “never got confirmation from any of the companies” that they couldn’t get PEG because it was being used for vaccines. He noted that shortages of some PEG-based preps have continued even though vaccine production has stabilized.
 

Over-the-counter alternatives can be ‘hit or miss’

With the price for all bowel preps – and co-pays – increasing in the last 2 years, some practices are directing patients on how to mix up their own using over-the-counter (OTC) ingredients, which is likely to be less expensive.

The out-of-pocket cost for a four-liter, high-volume PEG-based prep might be $35-$50, according to GoodRx. Alternatives such as Suprep (sodium/potassium/magnesium) run $110-$120, according to the website, and a sodium phosphate-based prep, such as OsmoPrep, runs close to $300.

The OTC prep uses MiraLAX (PEG-based but without additional electrolytes mixed in) and bisacodyl (Dulcolax). Johns Hopkins University, Cleveland Clinic, and Memorial Sloan Kettering, among many other institutions, have advised patients to use the OTC do-it-yourself preps. It is a split prep, using 238 grams of MiraLAX mixed with 64 ounces of water or a sports drink (for example, Gatorade). The day before the procedure, patients take 2 bisacodyl (5 mg) tablets, followed by four 8-ounce glasses of a MiraLAX/water mixture. The same regimen is followed the day of the procedure.

There are mixed results on how adequately the regimen cleans the colon. A 2014 meta-analysis found that the MiraLAX-based prep was inferior in terms of bowel cleansing to PEG-based formulations premixed with electrolyte solutions (PEG-ELS). There was no statistically significant difference in polyp detection between the two. In a 2011 analysis, researchers concluded that GoLYTELY was superior to MiraLAX in colon prep and adenoma detection.

The 2014 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Guidelines reported that the MiraLAX-based prep had less effective bowel preparation than 4-liter PEG-ELS solutions in at least one study but that it appeared to be more tolerable for patients and associated with few adverse events. More study of its safety is “warranted and desirable,” write the authors.

Even before the pandemic, Dr. Rex said his practice used the MiraLAX-based prep because it was less expensive, and “anecdotally it tends to be very well tolerated.”

However, he noted that the regimen is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“A lot of people don’t like to use non–FDA approved preps because they’re afraid of some liability if there is a complication,” Dr. Rex said.

Dr. Ali added that he has advised patients to use the OTC preps, but the results can be “hit or miss.”

Some patients can easily comply with the instructions and will have good results, but others may not have the education or understanding or may have underlying medical conditions that lessen the OTC formulation’s effectiveness in getting a good cleanout, said Dr. Ali.

Dr. Stevoff has occasionally used the OTC prep but agrees that not all patients will be able to follow the directions.

“The more complicated a process is, the more likely it is that somebody will make a mistake,” he said.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

Columbia University has suspended Jeffrey Lieberman, MD, as chair of the psychiatry department at the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and has removed him as psychiatrist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The university had not confirmed the suspension to this news organization by press time, but a letter from the school’s leadership notifying staff of the suspension was posted on Twitter the morning of Feb. 23 by addiction psychiatrist Jeremy Kidd, MD, who is a colleague of Dr. Lieberman’s at Columbia.

The suspension comes in the wake of Dr. Lieberman’s Feb. 21 tweet that drew immediate backlash by Twitter users who characterized it as racist and misogynist.

Dr. Lieberman, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, reportedly deleted the tweet and his entire Twitter account soon after, according to NewsOne.

However, the tweet was captured by others, including Jack Turban, MD, a child psychiatry fellow at Stanford University. In Turban’s retweet, Dr. Lieberman commented on a tweet about a black model, noting, “whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold.”

The response on Twitter was swift. “My ancestors would roll over in their graves if I refrained from commentary on how anti-Blackness shows up in ‘compliments,’” tweeted Jessica Isom, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist at Yale University.

Dr. Turban speculated that there will be no consequences for Dr. Lieberman, adding in his tweet, “He will continue to make the hiring decisions (including for faculty candidates who are women of color).”
 

Apology letter?

David Pagliaccio, a research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, posted what appeared to be an apology letter from Dr. Lieberman, although it could not be verified by this news organization.

In it, Dr. Lieberman was quoted as saying, “Yesterday, I tweeted from my personal account a message that was racist and sexist,” adding that prejudices he didn’t know he had held had been exposed, “and I’m deeply ashamed and very sorry.”

“I’ve hurt many, and I am beginning to understand the work ahead to make needed personal changes and over time to regain your trust,” Dr. Lieberman added.

Dr. Kidd called the suspension “absolutely the right move.” He added in his tweet that it “is only the beginning of what Columbia must do to heal & earn the trust our patients & trainees place in us every day.”

This news organization’s queries to Columbia University and to Dr. Lieberman were not returned by press time.  

Dr. Lieberman is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was an advisory board member for Medscape Psychiatry and a frequent columnist for Medscape Medical News (sister organizations of MDedge.com), and was a consultant for Clinical Psychiatry.

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

A young woman is having her lip swabbed with an unknown substance, smiling, on the TikTok video. Seconds later, another young woman, wearing gloves, pushes a hyaluron pen against the first woman’s lips, who, in the next cut, is smiling, happy. “My first syringe down and already 1,000x more confident,” the caption reads.

That video is one of thousands showing hyaluron pen use on TikTok. The pens are sold online and are unapproved – which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning in October 2021 that use could cause bleeding, infection, blood vessel occlusion that could result in blindness or stroke, allergic reactions, and other injuries.

The warning has not stopped many TikTokkers, who also use the medium to promote all sorts of skin and aesthetic products and procedures, a large number unproven, unapproved, or ill advised. As TikTok has become one of the most widely used social media platforms, millions of mostly teenagers regularly log on for skin care advice, which, more often than not, comes from “skinfluencers,” aestheticians, and other laypeople, not board-certified dermatologists.

The suggested “hacks” can be harmless or ineffective, but they also can be misleading, fraudulent, or even dangerous.
 

Skinfluencers take the lead

TikTok has a reported 1 billion monthly users. Two-thirds are aged 10-29 years, according to data reported in February 2021 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology by David X. Zheng, BA, and colleagues at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and the department of dermatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Visitors consume information in video bits that run from 15 seconds to up to 3 minutes and can follow their favorite TikTokkers, browse for people or hashtags with a search function, or click on content recommended by the platform, which uses algorithms based on the user’s viewing habits to determine what might be of interest.

Some of the biggest “skinfluencers” have millions of followers: Hyram Yarbro, (@skincarebyhyram) for instance, has 6.6 million followers and his own line of skin care products at Sephora. Mr. Yarbro is seen as a no-nonsense debunker of skin care myths, as is British influencer James Welsh, who has 124,000 followers.

“The reason why people trust your average influencer person who’s not a doctor is because they’re relatable,” said Muneeb Shah, MD, a dermatology resident at Atlantic Dermatology in Wilmington, N.C. – known to his 11.4 million TikTok followers as @dermdoctor.

To Sandra Lee, MD, the popularity of nonprofessionals is easy to explain. “You have to think about the fact that a lot of people can’t see dermatologists – they don’t have the money, they don’t have the time to travel there, they don’t have health insurance, or they’re scared of doctors, so they’re willing to try to find an answer, and one of the easiest ways, one of the more entertaining ways to get information, is on social media.”

Dr. Lee is in private practice in Upland, Calif., but is better known as “Dr. Pimple Popper,” through her television show of the same name and her social media accounts, including on TikTok, where she has 14.4 million followers after having started in 2020.

“We’re all looking for that no-down-time, no-expense, no-lines, no-wrinkles, stay-young-forever magic bullet,” said Dr. Lee.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, agreed that people are looking for a quick fix. They don’t want to wait 12 weeks for an acne medication or 16 weeks for a biologic to work. “They want something simple, easy, do-it-yourself,” and “natural,” he said.

Laypeople are still the dominant producers – and have the most views – of dermatology content.

Morgan Nguyen, BA, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues looked at hashtags for the top 10 dermatologic diagnoses and procedures and analyzed the content of the first 40 TikTok videos in each category. About half the videos were produced by an individual, and 39% by a health care provider, according to the study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. About 40% of the videos were educational, focusing on skin care, procedures, and disease treatment.

Viewership was highest for videos by laypeople, followed by those produced by business or industry accounts. Those produced by health care providers received only 18% of the views.

The most popular videos were about dermatologic diagnoses, with 2.5 billion views, followed by dermatologic procedures, with 708 million views.

Ms. Nguyen noted in the study that the most liked and most viewed posts were related to #skincare but that board-certified dermatologists produced only 2.5% of the #skincare videos.


 

Dermatologists take to TikTok

Some dermatologists have started their own TikTok accounts, seeking both to counteract misinformation and provide education.

Dr. Shah has become one of the top influencers on the platform. In a year-end wrap, TikTok put Dr. Shah at No. 7 on its top creators list for 2021.

MDedge

Doris Day, MD, who goes by @drdorisday on TikTok, agreed with Dr. Lee. “There are so many creative ways you can convey information with it that’s different than what you have on Instagram,” said Dr. Day, who is in private practice in New York. And, she added, “it does really lend itself to getting points out super-fast.”

Dermatologists on TikTok also said they like the “duets” and the “stitch” features, which allow users to add on to an existing video, essentially chiming in or responding to what might have already been posted, in a side-by-side format.

Dr. Shah said he often duets videos that have questionable content. “It allows me to directly respond to people. A lot of times, if something is going really viral and it’s not accurate, you’ll have a response from me or one of the other doctors” within hours or days.

Dr. Shah’s duets are labeled with “DermDoctor Reacts” or “DermDoctor Explains.” In one duet, with more than 2.8 million views, the upper half of the video is someone squeezing a blackhead, while Dr. Shah, in the bottom half, in green scrubs, opines over some hip-hop music: “This is just a blackhead. But once it gets to this point, they do need to be extracted because topical treatments won’t help.”

TikTok trends gone bad

And some people are being hurt by emulating what they see on TikTok.

Dr. Friedman had a patient with extreme irritant contact dermatitis, “almost like chemical burns to her underarms,” he said. He determined that she saw a video “hack” that recommended using baking soda to stop hyperhidrosis. The patient used so much that it burned her skin.

In 2020, do-it-yourself freckles – with henna or sewing needles impregnated with ink – went viral. Tilly Whitfeld, a 21-year-old reality TV star on Australia’s Big Brother show, told the New York Times that she tried it at home after seeing a TikTok video. She ordered brown tattoo ink online and later found out that it was contaminated with lead, according to the Times. Ms. Whitfeld developed an infection and temporary vision loss and has permanent scarring.

She has since put out a cautionary TikTok video that’s been viewed some 300,000 times.

TikTokkers have also flocked to the idea of using sunscreen to “contour” the face. Selected areas are left without sunscreen to burn or tan. In a duet, a plastic surgeon shakes his head as a young woman explains that “it works.”

Scalp-popping – in which the hair is yanked so hard that it pulls the galea off the skull – has been mostly shut down by TikTok. A search of “scalp popping” brings up the message: “Learn how to recognize harmful challenges and hoaxes.” At-home mole and skin tag removal, pimple-popping, and supposed acne cures such as drinking chlorophyll are all avidly documented and shared on TikTok.

Dr. Shah had a back-and-forth video dialog with someone who had stubbed a toe and then drilled a hole into the nail to drain the hematoma. In a reaction video, Dr. Shah said it was likely to turn into an infection. When it did, the man revealed the infection in a video where he tagged Dr. Shah and later posted a video at the podiatrist’s office having his nail removed, again tagging Dr. Shah.

“I think that pretty much no procedure for skin is good to do at home,” said Dr. Shah, who repeatedly admonishes against mole removal by a nonphysician. He tells followers that “it’s extremely dangerous – not only is it going to cause scarring, but you are potentially discarding a cancerous lesion.”

Unfortunately, most will not follow the advice, said Dr. Shah. That’s especially true of pimple-popping. Aiming for the least harm, he suggests in some TikTok videos that poppers keep the area clean, wear gloves, and consult a physician to get an antibiotic prescription. “You might as well at least guide them in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Lee believes that lack of access to physicians, insurance, or money may play into how TikTok trends evolve. “Probably those people who injected their lips with this air gun thing, maybe they didn’t have the money necessarily to get filler,” she said.

Also, she noted, while TikTok may try to police its content, creators are incentivized to be outrageous. “The more inflammatory your post is, the more engagement you get.”

Dr. Shah thinks TikTok is self-correcting. “If you’re not being ethical or contradicting yourself, putting out information that’s not accurate, people are going to catch on very quickly,” he said. “The only value, the only currency you have on social media is the trust that you build with people that follow you.”
 

What it takes to be a TikTokker

For dermatologists, conveying their credentials and experience is one way to build that currency. Dr. Lee advised fellow doctors on TikTok to “showcase your training and how many years it took to become a dermatologist.”

Plunging into TikTok is not for everyone, though. It’s time consuming, said Dr. Lee, who now devotes most of her nonclinical time to TikTok. She creates her own content, leaving others to manage her Instagram account.

Many of those in the medical field who have dived into TikTok are residents, like Dr. Shah. “They are attuned to it and understand it more,” said Dr. Lee. “It’s harder for a lot of us who are older, who really weren’t involved that much in social media at all. It’s very hard to jump in.” There’s a learning curve, and it takes hours to create a single video. “You have to enjoy it and it has to be a part of your life,” she said.

Dr. Shah started experimenting with TikTok at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 and has never turned back. Fast-talking, curious, and with an infectious sense of fun, he shares tidbits about his personal life – putting his wife in some of his videos – and always seems upbeat.

He said that, as his following grew, users began to see him as an authority figure and started “tagging” him more often, seeking his opinion on other videos. Although still a resident, he believes he has specialized knowledge to share. “Even if you’re not the world’s leading expert in a particular topic, you’re still adding value for the person who doesn’t know much.”

Dr. Shah also occasionally does promotional TikToks, identified as sponsored content. He said he only works with companies that he believes have legitimate products. “You do have to monetize at some point,” he said, noting that many dermatologists, himself included, are trading clinic time for TikTok. “There’s no universe where they can do this for free.”

Product endorsements are likely more rewarding for influencers and other users like Dr. Shah than the remuneration from TikTok, the company. The platform pays user accounts $20 per 1 million views, Dr. Shah said. “Financially, it’s not a big winner for a practicing dermatologist, but the educational outreach is worthwhile.”

To be successful also means understanding what drives viewership.

Using “trending” sounds has “been shown to increase the likelihood of a video amassing millions of views” and may increase engagement with dermatologists’ TikTok videos, wrote Bina Kassamali, BA, and colleagues at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and the Ponce Health Science University School of Medicine in Ponce, Puerto Rico, in a letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in July 2021.

Certain content is more likely to engage viewers. In their analysis of top trending dermatologic hashtags, acne-related content was viewed 6.7 billion times, followed by alopecia, with 1.1 billion views. Psoriasis content had 84 million views, putting it eighth on the list of topics.

Dermatologists are still cracking TikTok. They are accumulating more followers on TikTok than on Instagram but have greater engagement on Instagram reels, wrote Mindy D. Szeto, MS, and colleagues at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Rocky Vista University in Parker, Colo., in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in April 2021.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Shah had the highest engagement rate on TikTok, according to Ms. Szeto. The engagement rate is calculated as (likes + comments per post)/(total followers) x 100.

“TikTok may currently be the leading avenue for audience education by dermatologist influencers,” they wrote, urging dermatologists to use the platform to answer the call as more of the public “continues to turn to social media for medical advice.”

Dr. Day said she will keep trying to build her TikTok audience. She has just 239 followers, compared with her 44,500 on Instagram. “The more I do TikTok, the more I do any of these mediums, the better I get at it,” she said. “We just have to put a little time and effort into it and try to get more followers and just keep sharing the information.”

Dr. Friedman sees it as a positive that some dermatologists have taken to TikTok to dispel myths and put “good information out there in small bites.” But to be more effective, they need more followers.

“The truth is that 14-year-old is probably going to listen more to a Hyram than a dermatologist,” he said. “Maybe we need to work with these other individuals who know how to take these messages and convert them to a language that can be digested by a 14-year-old, by a 12-year-old, by a 23-year-old. We need to come to the table together and not fight.”

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

A young woman is having her lip swabbed with an unknown substance, smiling, on the TikTok video. Seconds later, another young woman, wearing gloves, pushes a hyaluron pen against the first woman’s lips, who, in the next cut, is smiling, happy. “My first syringe down and already 1,000x more confident,” the caption reads.

That video is one of thousands showing hyaluron pen use on TikTok. The pens are sold online and are unapproved – which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning in October 2021 that use could cause bleeding, infection, blood vessel occlusion that could result in blindness or stroke, allergic reactions, and other injuries.

The warning has not stopped many TikTokkers, who also use the medium to promote all sorts of skin and aesthetic products and procedures, a large number unproven, unapproved, or ill advised. As TikTok has become one of the most widely used social media platforms, millions of mostly teenagers regularly log on for skin care advice, which, more often than not, comes from “skinfluencers,” aestheticians, and other laypeople, not board-certified dermatologists.

The suggested “hacks” can be harmless or ineffective, but they also can be misleading, fraudulent, or even dangerous.
 

Skinfluencers take the lead

TikTok has a reported 1 billion monthly users. Two-thirds are aged 10-29 years, according to data reported in February 2021 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology by David X. Zheng, BA, and colleagues at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and the department of dermatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Visitors consume information in video bits that run from 15 seconds to up to 3 minutes and can follow their favorite TikTokkers, browse for people or hashtags with a search function, or click on content recommended by the platform, which uses algorithms based on the user’s viewing habits to determine what might be of interest.

Some of the biggest “skinfluencers” have millions of followers: Hyram Yarbro, (@skincarebyhyram) for instance, has 6.6 million followers and his own line of skin care products at Sephora. Mr. Yarbro is seen as a no-nonsense debunker of skin care myths, as is British influencer James Welsh, who has 124,000 followers.

“The reason why people trust your average influencer person who’s not a doctor is because they’re relatable,” said Muneeb Shah, MD, a dermatology resident at Atlantic Dermatology in Wilmington, N.C. – known to his 11.4 million TikTok followers as @dermdoctor.

To Sandra Lee, MD, the popularity of nonprofessionals is easy to explain. “You have to think about the fact that a lot of people can’t see dermatologists – they don’t have the money, they don’t have the time to travel there, they don’t have health insurance, or they’re scared of doctors, so they’re willing to try to find an answer, and one of the easiest ways, one of the more entertaining ways to get information, is on social media.”

Dr. Lee is in private practice in Upland, Calif., but is better known as “Dr. Pimple Popper,” through her television show of the same name and her social media accounts, including on TikTok, where she has 14.4 million followers after having started in 2020.

“We’re all looking for that no-down-time, no-expense, no-lines, no-wrinkles, stay-young-forever magic bullet,” said Dr. Lee.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, agreed that people are looking for a quick fix. They don’t want to wait 12 weeks for an acne medication or 16 weeks for a biologic to work. “They want something simple, easy, do-it-yourself,” and “natural,” he said.

Laypeople are still the dominant producers – and have the most views – of dermatology content.

Morgan Nguyen, BA, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues looked at hashtags for the top 10 dermatologic diagnoses and procedures and analyzed the content of the first 40 TikTok videos in each category. About half the videos were produced by an individual, and 39% by a health care provider, according to the study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. About 40% of the videos were educational, focusing on skin care, procedures, and disease treatment.

Viewership was highest for videos by laypeople, followed by those produced by business or industry accounts. Those produced by health care providers received only 18% of the views.

The most popular videos were about dermatologic diagnoses, with 2.5 billion views, followed by dermatologic procedures, with 708 million views.

Ms. Nguyen noted in the study that the most liked and most viewed posts were related to #skincare but that board-certified dermatologists produced only 2.5% of the #skincare videos.


 

Dermatologists take to TikTok

Some dermatologists have started their own TikTok accounts, seeking both to counteract misinformation and provide education.

Dr. Shah has become one of the top influencers on the platform. In a year-end wrap, TikTok put Dr. Shah at No. 7 on its top creators list for 2021.

MDedge

Doris Day, MD, who goes by @drdorisday on TikTok, agreed with Dr. Lee. “There are so many creative ways you can convey information with it that’s different than what you have on Instagram,” said Dr. Day, who is in private practice in New York. And, she added, “it does really lend itself to getting points out super-fast.”

Dermatologists on TikTok also said they like the “duets” and the “stitch” features, which allow users to add on to an existing video, essentially chiming in or responding to what might have already been posted, in a side-by-side format.

Dr. Shah said he often duets videos that have questionable content. “It allows me to directly respond to people. A lot of times, if something is going really viral and it’s not accurate, you’ll have a response from me or one of the other doctors” within hours or days.

Dr. Shah’s duets are labeled with “DermDoctor Reacts” or “DermDoctor Explains.” In one duet, with more than 2.8 million views, the upper half of the video is someone squeezing a blackhead, while Dr. Shah, in the bottom half, in green scrubs, opines over some hip-hop music: “This is just a blackhead. But once it gets to this point, they do need to be extracted because topical treatments won’t help.”

TikTok trends gone bad

And some people are being hurt by emulating what they see on TikTok.

Dr. Friedman had a patient with extreme irritant contact dermatitis, “almost like chemical burns to her underarms,” he said. He determined that she saw a video “hack” that recommended using baking soda to stop hyperhidrosis. The patient used so much that it burned her skin.

In 2020, do-it-yourself freckles – with henna or sewing needles impregnated with ink – went viral. Tilly Whitfeld, a 21-year-old reality TV star on Australia’s Big Brother show, told the New York Times that she tried it at home after seeing a TikTok video. She ordered brown tattoo ink online and later found out that it was contaminated with lead, according to the Times. Ms. Whitfeld developed an infection and temporary vision loss and has permanent scarring.

She has since put out a cautionary TikTok video that’s been viewed some 300,000 times.

TikTokkers have also flocked to the idea of using sunscreen to “contour” the face. Selected areas are left without sunscreen to burn or tan. In a duet, a plastic surgeon shakes his head as a young woman explains that “it works.”

Scalp-popping – in which the hair is yanked so hard that it pulls the galea off the skull – has been mostly shut down by TikTok. A search of “scalp popping” brings up the message: “Learn how to recognize harmful challenges and hoaxes.” At-home mole and skin tag removal, pimple-popping, and supposed acne cures such as drinking chlorophyll are all avidly documented and shared on TikTok.

Dr. Shah had a back-and-forth video dialog with someone who had stubbed a toe and then drilled a hole into the nail to drain the hematoma. In a reaction video, Dr. Shah said it was likely to turn into an infection. When it did, the man revealed the infection in a video where he tagged Dr. Shah and later posted a video at the podiatrist’s office having his nail removed, again tagging Dr. Shah.

“I think that pretty much no procedure for skin is good to do at home,” said Dr. Shah, who repeatedly admonishes against mole removal by a nonphysician. He tells followers that “it’s extremely dangerous – not only is it going to cause scarring, but you are potentially discarding a cancerous lesion.”

Unfortunately, most will not follow the advice, said Dr. Shah. That’s especially true of pimple-popping. Aiming for the least harm, he suggests in some TikTok videos that poppers keep the area clean, wear gloves, and consult a physician to get an antibiotic prescription. “You might as well at least guide them in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Lee believes that lack of access to physicians, insurance, or money may play into how TikTok trends evolve. “Probably those people who injected their lips with this air gun thing, maybe they didn’t have the money necessarily to get filler,” she said.

Also, she noted, while TikTok may try to police its content, creators are incentivized to be outrageous. “The more inflammatory your post is, the more engagement you get.”

Dr. Shah thinks TikTok is self-correcting. “If you’re not being ethical or contradicting yourself, putting out information that’s not accurate, people are going to catch on very quickly,” he said. “The only value, the only currency you have on social media is the trust that you build with people that follow you.”
 

What it takes to be a TikTokker

For dermatologists, conveying their credentials and experience is one way to build that currency. Dr. Lee advised fellow doctors on TikTok to “showcase your training and how many years it took to become a dermatologist.”

Plunging into TikTok is not for everyone, though. It’s time consuming, said Dr. Lee, who now devotes most of her nonclinical time to TikTok. She creates her own content, leaving others to manage her Instagram account.

Many of those in the medical field who have dived into TikTok are residents, like Dr. Shah. “They are attuned to it and understand it more,” said Dr. Lee. “It’s harder for a lot of us who are older, who really weren’t involved that much in social media at all. It’s very hard to jump in.” There’s a learning curve, and it takes hours to create a single video. “You have to enjoy it and it has to be a part of your life,” she said.

Dr. Shah started experimenting with TikTok at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 and has never turned back. Fast-talking, curious, and with an infectious sense of fun, he shares tidbits about his personal life – putting his wife in some of his videos – and always seems upbeat.

He said that, as his following grew, users began to see him as an authority figure and started “tagging” him more often, seeking his opinion on other videos. Although still a resident, he believes he has specialized knowledge to share. “Even if you’re not the world’s leading expert in a particular topic, you’re still adding value for the person who doesn’t know much.”

Dr. Shah also occasionally does promotional TikToks, identified as sponsored content. He said he only works with companies that he believes have legitimate products. “You do have to monetize at some point,” he said, noting that many dermatologists, himself included, are trading clinic time for TikTok. “There’s no universe where they can do this for free.”

Product endorsements are likely more rewarding for influencers and other users like Dr. Shah than the remuneration from TikTok, the company. The platform pays user accounts $20 per 1 million views, Dr. Shah said. “Financially, it’s not a big winner for a practicing dermatologist, but the educational outreach is worthwhile.”

To be successful also means understanding what drives viewership.

Using “trending” sounds has “been shown to increase the likelihood of a video amassing millions of views” and may increase engagement with dermatologists’ TikTok videos, wrote Bina Kassamali, BA, and colleagues at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and the Ponce Health Science University School of Medicine in Ponce, Puerto Rico, in a letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in July 2021.

Certain content is more likely to engage viewers. In their analysis of top trending dermatologic hashtags, acne-related content was viewed 6.7 billion times, followed by alopecia, with 1.1 billion views. Psoriasis content had 84 million views, putting it eighth on the list of topics.

Dermatologists are still cracking TikTok. They are accumulating more followers on TikTok than on Instagram but have greater engagement on Instagram reels, wrote Mindy D. Szeto, MS, and colleagues at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Rocky Vista University in Parker, Colo., in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in April 2021.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Shah had the highest engagement rate on TikTok, according to Ms. Szeto. The engagement rate is calculated as (likes + comments per post)/(total followers) x 100.

“TikTok may currently be the leading avenue for audience education by dermatologist influencers,” they wrote, urging dermatologists to use the platform to answer the call as more of the public “continues to turn to social media for medical advice.”

Dr. Day said she will keep trying to build her TikTok audience. She has just 239 followers, compared with her 44,500 on Instagram. “The more I do TikTok, the more I do any of these mediums, the better I get at it,” she said. “We just have to put a little time and effort into it and try to get more followers and just keep sharing the information.”

Dr. Friedman sees it as a positive that some dermatologists have taken to TikTok to dispel myths and put “good information out there in small bites.” But to be more effective, they need more followers.

“The truth is that 14-year-old is probably going to listen more to a Hyram than a dermatologist,” he said. “Maybe we need to work with these other individuals who know how to take these messages and convert them to a language that can be digested by a 14-year-old, by a 12-year-old, by a 23-year-old. We need to come to the table together and not fight.”

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

A young woman is having her lip swabbed with an unknown substance, smiling, on the TikTok video. Seconds later, another young woman, wearing gloves, pushes a hyaluron pen against the first woman’s lips, who, in the next cut, is smiling, happy. “My first syringe down and already 1,000x more confident,” the caption reads.

That video is one of thousands showing hyaluron pen use on TikTok. The pens are sold online and are unapproved – which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning in October 2021 that use could cause bleeding, infection, blood vessel occlusion that could result in blindness or stroke, allergic reactions, and other injuries.

The warning has not stopped many TikTokkers, who also use the medium to promote all sorts of skin and aesthetic products and procedures, a large number unproven, unapproved, or ill advised. As TikTok has become one of the most widely used social media platforms, millions of mostly teenagers regularly log on for skin care advice, which, more often than not, comes from “skinfluencers,” aestheticians, and other laypeople, not board-certified dermatologists.

The suggested “hacks” can be harmless or ineffective, but they also can be misleading, fraudulent, or even dangerous.
 

Skinfluencers take the lead

TikTok has a reported 1 billion monthly users. Two-thirds are aged 10-29 years, according to data reported in February 2021 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology by David X. Zheng, BA, and colleagues at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and the department of dermatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Visitors consume information in video bits that run from 15 seconds to up to 3 minutes and can follow their favorite TikTokkers, browse for people or hashtags with a search function, or click on content recommended by the platform, which uses algorithms based on the user’s viewing habits to determine what might be of interest.

Some of the biggest “skinfluencers” have millions of followers: Hyram Yarbro, (@skincarebyhyram) for instance, has 6.6 million followers and his own line of skin care products at Sephora. Mr. Yarbro is seen as a no-nonsense debunker of skin care myths, as is British influencer James Welsh, who has 124,000 followers.

“The reason why people trust your average influencer person who’s not a doctor is because they’re relatable,” said Muneeb Shah, MD, a dermatology resident at Atlantic Dermatology in Wilmington, N.C. – known to his 11.4 million TikTok followers as @dermdoctor.

To Sandra Lee, MD, the popularity of nonprofessionals is easy to explain. “You have to think about the fact that a lot of people can’t see dermatologists – they don’t have the money, they don’t have the time to travel there, they don’t have health insurance, or they’re scared of doctors, so they’re willing to try to find an answer, and one of the easiest ways, one of the more entertaining ways to get information, is on social media.”

Dr. Lee is in private practice in Upland, Calif., but is better known as “Dr. Pimple Popper,” through her television show of the same name and her social media accounts, including on TikTok, where she has 14.4 million followers after having started in 2020.

“We’re all looking for that no-down-time, no-expense, no-lines, no-wrinkles, stay-young-forever magic bullet,” said Dr. Lee.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, agreed that people are looking for a quick fix. They don’t want to wait 12 weeks for an acne medication or 16 weeks for a biologic to work. “They want something simple, easy, do-it-yourself,” and “natural,” he said.

Laypeople are still the dominant producers – and have the most views – of dermatology content.

Morgan Nguyen, BA, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues looked at hashtags for the top 10 dermatologic diagnoses and procedures and analyzed the content of the first 40 TikTok videos in each category. About half the videos were produced by an individual, and 39% by a health care provider, according to the study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. About 40% of the videos were educational, focusing on skin care, procedures, and disease treatment.

Viewership was highest for videos by laypeople, followed by those produced by business or industry accounts. Those produced by health care providers received only 18% of the views.

The most popular videos were about dermatologic diagnoses, with 2.5 billion views, followed by dermatologic procedures, with 708 million views.

Ms. Nguyen noted in the study that the most liked and most viewed posts were related to #skincare but that board-certified dermatologists produced only 2.5% of the #skincare videos.


 

Dermatologists take to TikTok

Some dermatologists have started their own TikTok accounts, seeking both to counteract misinformation and provide education.

Dr. Shah has become one of the top influencers on the platform. In a year-end wrap, TikTok put Dr. Shah at No. 7 on its top creators list for 2021.

MDedge

Doris Day, MD, who goes by @drdorisday on TikTok, agreed with Dr. Lee. “There are so many creative ways you can convey information with it that’s different than what you have on Instagram,” said Dr. Day, who is in private practice in New York. And, she added, “it does really lend itself to getting points out super-fast.”

Dermatologists on TikTok also said they like the “duets” and the “stitch” features, which allow users to add on to an existing video, essentially chiming in or responding to what might have already been posted, in a side-by-side format.

Dr. Shah said he often duets videos that have questionable content. “It allows me to directly respond to people. A lot of times, if something is going really viral and it’s not accurate, you’ll have a response from me or one of the other doctors” within hours or days.

Dr. Shah’s duets are labeled with “DermDoctor Reacts” or “DermDoctor Explains.” In one duet, with more than 2.8 million views, the upper half of the video is someone squeezing a blackhead, while Dr. Shah, in the bottom half, in green scrubs, opines over some hip-hop music: “This is just a blackhead. But once it gets to this point, they do need to be extracted because topical treatments won’t help.”

TikTok trends gone bad

And some people are being hurt by emulating what they see on TikTok.

Dr. Friedman had a patient with extreme irritant contact dermatitis, “almost like chemical burns to her underarms,” he said. He determined that she saw a video “hack” that recommended using baking soda to stop hyperhidrosis. The patient used so much that it burned her skin.

In 2020, do-it-yourself freckles – with henna or sewing needles impregnated with ink – went viral. Tilly Whitfeld, a 21-year-old reality TV star on Australia’s Big Brother show, told the New York Times that she tried it at home after seeing a TikTok video. She ordered brown tattoo ink online and later found out that it was contaminated with lead, according to the Times. Ms. Whitfeld developed an infection and temporary vision loss and has permanent scarring.

She has since put out a cautionary TikTok video that’s been viewed some 300,000 times.

TikTokkers have also flocked to the idea of using sunscreen to “contour” the face. Selected areas are left without sunscreen to burn or tan. In a duet, a plastic surgeon shakes his head as a young woman explains that “it works.”

Scalp-popping – in which the hair is yanked so hard that it pulls the galea off the skull – has been mostly shut down by TikTok. A search of “scalp popping” brings up the message: “Learn how to recognize harmful challenges and hoaxes.” At-home mole and skin tag removal, pimple-popping, and supposed acne cures such as drinking chlorophyll are all avidly documented and shared on TikTok.

Dr. Shah had a back-and-forth video dialog with someone who had stubbed a toe and then drilled a hole into the nail to drain the hematoma. In a reaction video, Dr. Shah said it was likely to turn into an infection. When it did, the man revealed the infection in a video where he tagged Dr. Shah and later posted a video at the podiatrist’s office having his nail removed, again tagging Dr. Shah.

“I think that pretty much no procedure for skin is good to do at home,” said Dr. Shah, who repeatedly admonishes against mole removal by a nonphysician. He tells followers that “it’s extremely dangerous – not only is it going to cause scarring, but you are potentially discarding a cancerous lesion.”

Unfortunately, most will not follow the advice, said Dr. Shah. That’s especially true of pimple-popping. Aiming for the least harm, he suggests in some TikTok videos that poppers keep the area clean, wear gloves, and consult a physician to get an antibiotic prescription. “You might as well at least guide them in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Lee believes that lack of access to physicians, insurance, or money may play into how TikTok trends evolve. “Probably those people who injected their lips with this air gun thing, maybe they didn’t have the money necessarily to get filler,” she said.

Also, she noted, while TikTok may try to police its content, creators are incentivized to be outrageous. “The more inflammatory your post is, the more engagement you get.”

Dr. Shah thinks TikTok is self-correcting. “If you’re not being ethical or contradicting yourself, putting out information that’s not accurate, people are going to catch on very quickly,” he said. “The only value, the only currency you have on social media is the trust that you build with people that follow you.”
 

What it takes to be a TikTokker

For dermatologists, conveying their credentials and experience is one way to build that currency. Dr. Lee advised fellow doctors on TikTok to “showcase your training and how many years it took to become a dermatologist.”

Plunging into TikTok is not for everyone, though. It’s time consuming, said Dr. Lee, who now devotes most of her nonclinical time to TikTok. She creates her own content, leaving others to manage her Instagram account.

Many of those in the medical field who have dived into TikTok are residents, like Dr. Shah. “They are attuned to it and understand it more,” said Dr. Lee. “It’s harder for a lot of us who are older, who really weren’t involved that much in social media at all. It’s very hard to jump in.” There’s a learning curve, and it takes hours to create a single video. “You have to enjoy it and it has to be a part of your life,” she said.

Dr. Shah started experimenting with TikTok at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 and has never turned back. Fast-talking, curious, and with an infectious sense of fun, he shares tidbits about his personal life – putting his wife in some of his videos – and always seems upbeat.

He said that, as his following grew, users began to see him as an authority figure and started “tagging” him more often, seeking his opinion on other videos. Although still a resident, he believes he has specialized knowledge to share. “Even if you’re not the world’s leading expert in a particular topic, you’re still adding value for the person who doesn’t know much.”

Dr. Shah also occasionally does promotional TikToks, identified as sponsored content. He said he only works with companies that he believes have legitimate products. “You do have to monetize at some point,” he said, noting that many dermatologists, himself included, are trading clinic time for TikTok. “There’s no universe where they can do this for free.”

Product endorsements are likely more rewarding for influencers and other users like Dr. Shah than the remuneration from TikTok, the company. The platform pays user accounts $20 per 1 million views, Dr. Shah said. “Financially, it’s not a big winner for a practicing dermatologist, but the educational outreach is worthwhile.”

To be successful also means understanding what drives viewership.

Using “trending” sounds has “been shown to increase the likelihood of a video amassing millions of views” and may increase engagement with dermatologists’ TikTok videos, wrote Bina Kassamali, BA, and colleagues at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and the Ponce Health Science University School of Medicine in Ponce, Puerto Rico, in a letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in July 2021.

Certain content is more likely to engage viewers. In their analysis of top trending dermatologic hashtags, acne-related content was viewed 6.7 billion times, followed by alopecia, with 1.1 billion views. Psoriasis content had 84 million views, putting it eighth on the list of topics.

Dermatologists are still cracking TikTok. They are accumulating more followers on TikTok than on Instagram but have greater engagement on Instagram reels, wrote Mindy D. Szeto, MS, and colleagues at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Rocky Vista University in Parker, Colo., in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in April 2021.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Shah had the highest engagement rate on TikTok, according to Ms. Szeto. The engagement rate is calculated as (likes + comments per post)/(total followers) x 100.

“TikTok may currently be the leading avenue for audience education by dermatologist influencers,” they wrote, urging dermatologists to use the platform to answer the call as more of the public “continues to turn to social media for medical advice.”

Dr. Day said she will keep trying to build her TikTok audience. She has just 239 followers, compared with her 44,500 on Instagram. “The more I do TikTok, the more I do any of these mediums, the better I get at it,” she said. “We just have to put a little time and effort into it and try to get more followers and just keep sharing the information.”

Dr. Friedman sees it as a positive that some dermatologists have taken to TikTok to dispel myths and put “good information out there in small bites.” But to be more effective, they need more followers.

“The truth is that 14-year-old is probably going to listen more to a Hyram than a dermatologist,” he said. “Maybe we need to work with these other individuals who know how to take these messages and convert them to a language that can be digested by a 14-year-old, by a 12-year-old, by a 23-year-old. We need to come to the table together and not fight.”

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

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

A patient has been sentenced to life in prison 4 years after brutally murdering his psychiatrist.

According to news reports, Umar Dutt, then age 21, went to the office of psychiatrist Achutha Reddy, MD, in Wichita, Kan., on Sept. 19, 2017, aiming to hold the doctor hostage. Dr. Reddy’s office manager reportedly heard noise coming from the closed office and after entering, found Mr. Dutt assaulting the 57-year-old Dr. Reddy.

She intervened, and Dr. Reddy fled the building, but Mr. Dutt followed him and ultimately stabbed the physician more than 160 times. Mr. Dutt than ran over Dr. Reddy’s body.

The patient was arrested that day elsewhere and initially entered a “not guilty” plea in Sedgwick County District Court in 2019. Mr. Dutt was held in the county jail on a $1 million bond.

In September 2021, he changed his plea to guilty. He was sentenced on Nov. 9.

According to news reports, Mr. Dutt will be eligible for parole in 25 years. He received credit for time served of 4 years. The prosecutors and defense attorneys and the judge recommended that Mr. Dutt serve his sentence at Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility because of a history of mental illness.

KWCH reports that the Kansas Department of Corrections will ultimately decide where Mr. Dutt will be incarcerated.

Dr. Reddy left behind a wife and three children.

At Mr. Dutt’s sentencing hearing, Dr. Reddy’s widow, Beena Reddy, MD, a Wichita-based anesthesiologist, reportedly told the court: “My children and I have been devastated by Achutha’s death. Our stability, our security, our peace of mind, has been destroyed by the premeditated, evil actions of Umar Dutt.”

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

A patient has been sentenced to life in prison 4 years after brutally murdering his psychiatrist.

According to news reports, Umar Dutt, then age 21, went to the office of psychiatrist Achutha Reddy, MD, in Wichita, Kan., on Sept. 19, 2017, aiming to hold the doctor hostage. Dr. Reddy’s office manager reportedly heard noise coming from the closed office and after entering, found Mr. Dutt assaulting the 57-year-old Dr. Reddy.

She intervened, and Dr. Reddy fled the building, but Mr. Dutt followed him and ultimately stabbed the physician more than 160 times. Mr. Dutt than ran over Dr. Reddy’s body.

The patient was arrested that day elsewhere and initially entered a “not guilty” plea in Sedgwick County District Court in 2019. Mr. Dutt was held in the county jail on a $1 million bond.

In September 2021, he changed his plea to guilty. He was sentenced on Nov. 9.

According to news reports, Mr. Dutt will be eligible for parole in 25 years. He received credit for time served of 4 years. The prosecutors and defense attorneys and the judge recommended that Mr. Dutt serve his sentence at Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility because of a history of mental illness.

KWCH reports that the Kansas Department of Corrections will ultimately decide where Mr. Dutt will be incarcerated.

Dr. Reddy left behind a wife and three children.

At Mr. Dutt’s sentencing hearing, Dr. Reddy’s widow, Beena Reddy, MD, a Wichita-based anesthesiologist, reportedly told the court: “My children and I have been devastated by Achutha’s death. Our stability, our security, our peace of mind, has been destroyed by the premeditated, evil actions of Umar Dutt.”

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

A patient has been sentenced to life in prison 4 years after brutally murdering his psychiatrist.

According to news reports, Umar Dutt, then age 21, went to the office of psychiatrist Achutha Reddy, MD, in Wichita, Kan., on Sept. 19, 2017, aiming to hold the doctor hostage. Dr. Reddy’s office manager reportedly heard noise coming from the closed office and after entering, found Mr. Dutt assaulting the 57-year-old Dr. Reddy.

She intervened, and Dr. Reddy fled the building, but Mr. Dutt followed him and ultimately stabbed the physician more than 160 times. Mr. Dutt than ran over Dr. Reddy’s body.

The patient was arrested that day elsewhere and initially entered a “not guilty” plea in Sedgwick County District Court in 2019. Mr. Dutt was held in the county jail on a $1 million bond.

In September 2021, he changed his plea to guilty. He was sentenced on Nov. 9.

According to news reports, Mr. Dutt will be eligible for parole in 25 years. He received credit for time served of 4 years. The prosecutors and defense attorneys and the judge recommended that Mr. Dutt serve his sentence at Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility because of a history of mental illness.

KWCH reports that the Kansas Department of Corrections will ultimately decide where Mr. Dutt will be incarcerated.

Dr. Reddy left behind a wife and three children.

At Mr. Dutt’s sentencing hearing, Dr. Reddy’s widow, Beena Reddy, MD, a Wichita-based anesthesiologist, reportedly told the court: “My children and I have been devastated by Achutha’s death. Our stability, our security, our peace of mind, has been destroyed by the premeditated, evil actions of Umar Dutt.”

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

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

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

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

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

Some 30% of health care personnel who worked at the thousands of hospitals in the United States were still not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of mid-September, according to a new survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The snapshot in time – Jan. 20, 2021 to Sept. 15, 2021 – is based on voluntary weekly reports from hospitals. Only about 48% of the 5,085 hospitals in the U.S. Health and Human Services department’s Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System reported data on vaccination coverage during the period, and, after validation checks, the study included reports from 2,086 facilities, or just 41% of all hospitals, covering 3.35 million workers.

Overall, the number who were fully vaccinated rose from 36.1% in Jan. 2021 to 60.2% in April 2021, and then crept slowly up to 70% by Sept. 15, the CDC researchers reported in the American Journal of Infection Control.

The slowdown among hospital workers seems to mirror the same decline as in the general population.  

Arjun Srinivasan, MD, associate director for health care–associated infection prevention programs at the CDC, said the decline in part may be the result of misinformation.

Health care personnel “are not fully immune from vaccine misinformation,” he said, adding that such misinformation “is contributing to decreased vaccine uptake among non–health care personnel.”

“The take-home message is that there is a lot of work to do in health care settings in order to get all of our health care personnel vaccinated,” Dr. Srinivasan told this news organization. “We need them to be vaccinated to protect themselves. It is also really important that we as health care personnel get vaccinated to protect our patients.”
 

Vaccine mandates

The analysis shows that workers were more likely to be vaccinated if they worked at a children’s hospital (77%), lived in metropolitan counties (71%), or worked in a hospital with lower cumulative admissions of COVID-19 patients, or lower cumulative COVID-19 cases.

The odds of being fully vaccinated were lower if the surrounding community had lower vaccination coverage. Workers in non-metropolitan counties (63.3%) and in rural counties (65.1%) were also less likely to be fully vaccinated, as well as those who were in critical access hospitals (64%) or long-term acute care hospitals (68.8%).

Surveys have shown that health care personnel who are vaccine-hesitant cited concerns they had about vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, the speed of vaccine development, and lack of full Food and Drug Administration approval, the study authors noted. In addition, many reported low trust in the government.

A Medscape survey this past April found that 25% of health care workers said they did not plan to be fully vaccinated. Some 40% of the 9,349 workers who responded said that employers should never require a COVID-19 vaccine for clinicians.

But the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is attempting to require all health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payment to vaccinate workers. All eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose vaccine by Dec. 6, and a second dose by Jan. 4, 2022. The policy allows exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs.

Some hospitals and health systems and various states and cities have already begun implementing vaccine mandates. Northwell Health in New York, for instance, lost 1,400 workers (evenly split between clinical and nonclinical staff), or 2% of its 77,000 employees, as a result of the state’s mandate.

Northwell’s workforce is now considered 100% vaccinated, a hospital spokesman said in an interview. In addition, “we have allowed for team members who changed their minds and presented proof of vaccination to return,” said the spokesman, adding that “a couple of hundred employees have done just that.”

Ten states sued the Biden administration recently, aiming to stop the health care worker vaccine mandate. Other challenges to vaccine mandates have generally been unsuccessful. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in October declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandate for health care workers, even though it did not allow religious exemptions, according to the Washington Post.

“The courts seem to agree that health care personnel are different, and could be subject to these mandates,” said Dr. Srinivasan.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that an estimated 100,306 Americans died from drug overdoses during the period from April 2020 to April 2021, a 28.5% increase from the previous year.

Deaths in some states rose even more precipitously. Vermont saw an almost 70% increase, and drug overdose deaths in West Virginia increased by 62%. Many states, including Alabama, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Washington, had a 45%-50% rise in overdose deaths.

The data released by the CDC was provisional, as there is generally a lag between a reported overdose and confirmation of the death to the National Vital Statistics System. The agency uses statistical models that render the counts almost 100% accurate, the CDC says.

The vast majority (73,757) of overdose deaths involved opioids – with most of those (62,338) involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Federal officials said that one American died every 5 minutes from an overdose, or 265 a day.

“We have to acknowledge what this is – it is a crisis,” Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters on a call.

“As much as the numbers speak so vividly, they don’t tell the whole story. We see it in the faces of grieving families and all those overworked caregivers. You hear it every time you get that panicked 911 phone call, you read it in obituaries of sons and daughters who left us way too soon,” Mr. Becerra said.

Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that “this is unacceptable, and it requires an unprecedented response.”

Dr. Gupta, who noted that he has a waiver to treat substance use disorder patients with buprenorphine, said he’s seen “first-hand the heartbreak of the overdose epidemic,” adding that, with 23 years in practice, “I’ve learned that an overdose is a cry for help and for far too many people that cry goes unanswered.”

Both Mr. Becerra and Dr. Gupta called on Congress to pass President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2022 budget request, noting that it calls for $41 billion – a $669 million increase from fiscal year 2021 – to go to agencies working on drug interdiction and substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery support. 

Dr. Gupta also announced that the administration was releasing a model law that could be used by state legislatures to help standardize policies on making the overdose antidote naloxone more accessible. Currently, such policies are a patchwork across the nation.

In addition, the federal government is newly supporting harm reduction, Mr. Becerra said. This means federal money can be used by clinics and outreach programs to buy fentanyl test strips, which they can then distribute to drug users.

“It’s important for Americans to have the ability to make sure that they can test for fentanyl in the substance,” Dr. Gupta said.
 

Fake pills, fentanyl a huge issue

Federal officials said that both fentanyl and methamphetamine are contributing to rising numbers of fatalities.

“Drug cartels in Mexico are mass-producing fentanyl and methamphetamine largely sourced from chemicals in China and they are distributing these substances throughout the United States,” Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said on the call.

Ms. Milgram said the agency had seized 12,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2021, enough to provide every American with a lethal dose. Fentanyl is also mixed in with cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana – often in counterfeit pills, Ms. Milgram said.

The DEA and other law enforcement agencies have seized more than 14 million such pills in 2021. “These types of pills are easily accessible today on social media and e-commerce platforms, Ms. Milgram said.

“Drug dealers are now in our homes,” she said. “Wherever there is a smart phone or a computer, a dealer is one click away,” Ms. Milgram said.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora D. Volkow, MD, said that dealers will continue to push both fentanyl and methamphetamine because they are among the most addictive substances. They also are more profitable because they don’t require cultivation and harvesting, she said on the call.

Dr. Volkow also noted that naloxone is not as effective in reversing fentanyl overdoses because fentanyl is more potent than heroin and other opioids, and “it gets into the brain extremely rapidly.”

Ongoing research is aimed at developing a faster delivery mechanism and a longer-lasting formulation to counter overdoses, Dr. Volkow said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that an estimated 100,306 Americans died from drug overdoses during the period from April 2020 to April 2021, a 28.5% increase from the previous year.

Deaths in some states rose even more precipitously. Vermont saw an almost 70% increase, and drug overdose deaths in West Virginia increased by 62%. Many states, including Alabama, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Washington, had a 45%-50% rise in overdose deaths.

The data released by the CDC was provisional, as there is generally a lag between a reported overdose and confirmation of the death to the National Vital Statistics System. The agency uses statistical models that render the counts almost 100% accurate, the CDC says.

The vast majority (73,757) of overdose deaths involved opioids – with most of those (62,338) involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Federal officials said that one American died every 5 minutes from an overdose, or 265 a day.

“We have to acknowledge what this is – it is a crisis,” Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters on a call.

“As much as the numbers speak so vividly, they don’t tell the whole story. We see it in the faces of grieving families and all those overworked caregivers. You hear it every time you get that panicked 911 phone call, you read it in obituaries of sons and daughters who left us way too soon,” Mr. Becerra said.

Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that “this is unacceptable, and it requires an unprecedented response.”

Dr. Gupta, who noted that he has a waiver to treat substance use disorder patients with buprenorphine, said he’s seen “first-hand the heartbreak of the overdose epidemic,” adding that, with 23 years in practice, “I’ve learned that an overdose is a cry for help and for far too many people that cry goes unanswered.”

Both Mr. Becerra and Dr. Gupta called on Congress to pass President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2022 budget request, noting that it calls for $41 billion – a $669 million increase from fiscal year 2021 – to go to agencies working on drug interdiction and substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery support. 

Dr. Gupta also announced that the administration was releasing a model law that could be used by state legislatures to help standardize policies on making the overdose antidote naloxone more accessible. Currently, such policies are a patchwork across the nation.

In addition, the federal government is newly supporting harm reduction, Mr. Becerra said. This means federal money can be used by clinics and outreach programs to buy fentanyl test strips, which they can then distribute to drug users.

“It’s important for Americans to have the ability to make sure that they can test for fentanyl in the substance,” Dr. Gupta said.
 

Fake pills, fentanyl a huge issue

Federal officials said that both fentanyl and methamphetamine are contributing to rising numbers of fatalities.

“Drug cartels in Mexico are mass-producing fentanyl and methamphetamine largely sourced from chemicals in China and they are distributing these substances throughout the United States,” Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said on the call.

Ms. Milgram said the agency had seized 12,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2021, enough to provide every American with a lethal dose. Fentanyl is also mixed in with cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana – often in counterfeit pills, Ms. Milgram said.

The DEA and other law enforcement agencies have seized more than 14 million such pills in 2021. “These types of pills are easily accessible today on social media and e-commerce platforms, Ms. Milgram said.

“Drug dealers are now in our homes,” she said. “Wherever there is a smart phone or a computer, a dealer is one click away,” Ms. Milgram said.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora D. Volkow, MD, said that dealers will continue to push both fentanyl and methamphetamine because they are among the most addictive substances. They also are more profitable because they don’t require cultivation and harvesting, she said on the call.

Dr. Volkow also noted that naloxone is not as effective in reversing fentanyl overdoses because fentanyl is more potent than heroin and other opioids, and “it gets into the brain extremely rapidly.”

Ongoing research is aimed at developing a faster delivery mechanism and a longer-lasting formulation to counter overdoses, Dr. Volkow said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that an estimated 100,306 Americans died from drug overdoses during the period from April 2020 to April 2021, a 28.5% increase from the previous year.

Deaths in some states rose even more precipitously. Vermont saw an almost 70% increase, and drug overdose deaths in West Virginia increased by 62%. Many states, including Alabama, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Washington, had a 45%-50% rise in overdose deaths.

The data released by the CDC was provisional, as there is generally a lag between a reported overdose and confirmation of the death to the National Vital Statistics System. The agency uses statistical models that render the counts almost 100% accurate, the CDC says.

The vast majority (73,757) of overdose deaths involved opioids – with most of those (62,338) involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Federal officials said that one American died every 5 minutes from an overdose, or 265 a day.

“We have to acknowledge what this is – it is a crisis,” Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters on a call.

“As much as the numbers speak so vividly, they don’t tell the whole story. We see it in the faces of grieving families and all those overworked caregivers. You hear it every time you get that panicked 911 phone call, you read it in obituaries of sons and daughters who left us way too soon,” Mr. Becerra said.

Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that “this is unacceptable, and it requires an unprecedented response.”

Dr. Gupta, who noted that he has a waiver to treat substance use disorder patients with buprenorphine, said he’s seen “first-hand the heartbreak of the overdose epidemic,” adding that, with 23 years in practice, “I’ve learned that an overdose is a cry for help and for far too many people that cry goes unanswered.”

Both Mr. Becerra and Dr. Gupta called on Congress to pass President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2022 budget request, noting that it calls for $41 billion – a $669 million increase from fiscal year 2021 – to go to agencies working on drug interdiction and substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery support. 

Dr. Gupta also announced that the administration was releasing a model law that could be used by state legislatures to help standardize policies on making the overdose antidote naloxone more accessible. Currently, such policies are a patchwork across the nation.

In addition, the federal government is newly supporting harm reduction, Mr. Becerra said. This means federal money can be used by clinics and outreach programs to buy fentanyl test strips, which they can then distribute to drug users.

“It’s important for Americans to have the ability to make sure that they can test for fentanyl in the substance,” Dr. Gupta said.
 

Fake pills, fentanyl a huge issue

Federal officials said that both fentanyl and methamphetamine are contributing to rising numbers of fatalities.

“Drug cartels in Mexico are mass-producing fentanyl and methamphetamine largely sourced from chemicals in China and they are distributing these substances throughout the United States,” Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said on the call.

Ms. Milgram said the agency had seized 12,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2021, enough to provide every American with a lethal dose. Fentanyl is also mixed in with cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana – often in counterfeit pills, Ms. Milgram said.

The DEA and other law enforcement agencies have seized more than 14 million such pills in 2021. “These types of pills are easily accessible today on social media and e-commerce platforms, Ms. Milgram said.

“Drug dealers are now in our homes,” she said. “Wherever there is a smart phone or a computer, a dealer is one click away,” Ms. Milgram said.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora D. Volkow, MD, said that dealers will continue to push both fentanyl and methamphetamine because they are among the most addictive substances. They also are more profitable because they don’t require cultivation and harvesting, she said on the call.

Dr. Volkow also noted that naloxone is not as effective in reversing fentanyl overdoses because fentanyl is more potent than heroin and other opioids, and “it gets into the brain extremely rapidly.”

Ongoing research is aimed at developing a faster delivery mechanism and a longer-lasting formulation to counter overdoses, Dr. Volkow said.

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

During over 3 hours of oral arguments on Nov. 1, a seeming majority of Supreme Court justices appeared receptive to blocking a Texas law that essentially bans abortion after 6 weeks.

They seemed less certain about whether the federal government — which is also challenging the law — was within its rights to sue Texas.

Senate Bill 8, which went into effect September 1, allows any private citizen to file suit anywhere in the state against anyone who performs, induces, or “aids or abets” an abortion. If successful in court, the plaintiff is entitled to at least $10,000 and does not have to pay attorneys’ fees; rather, defendants are required to pay all legal costs.

In September, most justices denied an emergency request to stop the law but agreed to quickly hear the challenges in person.

At the Nov. 1 hearing, it appeared that a few justices who had let the law stand — notably conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — were now agreeing that its challengers, in particular the abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, might have a legal basis to move forward.

“I think it’s pretty likely the Court is going to do something that allows ‘someone’s’ suit against SB 8 to go ahead,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, a Houston attorney, after the hearing. “I don’t know when they’re going to do that.”

The Supreme Court usually issues its opinions months after arguments. Since these two challenges — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and US v. Texas —  were heard on a faster schedule, there’s speculation that a decision could also come quickly.

“The court clearly is in a hurry,” wrote Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler before the hearing in a post on court-tracking site SCOTUSblog. She said the court seems to be taking the abortion issue as seriously as most Americans, and that the justices could rule before it hears oral arguments on December 1 in a Mississippi case directly challenging Roe v. Wade.

In addition, data shows abortions have been severely curtailed in Texas since the law took effect — by as much as 50% according to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin. They reported that 2,164 abortions were provided in September 2021, compared with 4,313 in September 2020.

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court,” said Justice Elena Kagan, clarifying that it was every woman who had not made a decision by 6 weeks.

“Usually, in these chilling effect cases, we’re kind of guessing,” she said. “Here, we’re not guessing. We know exactly what has happened as a result of this law. It has chilled everybody on the ground.”

Judge Edward Stone II, an attorney with the Texas Attorney General’s Office who argued for the state, denied Justice Kagan’s assertion.

Nineteen medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Physicians, filed a friend of the court brief supporting both challenges, saying the Texas law allows legislators to interfere with the patient–doctor relationship and that it limits treatment options.

Texas argued that the only way to challenge the law at the federal level would be to be sued first.

Marc A. Hearron, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights who argued for Whole Woman’s Health, said that was untenable.

“What my friends on the other side are saying is that clinics should just violate the law,” and “subject themselves to the risk that they will be forced to close their doors,” said Mr. Hearron. 

But even if providers decide to violate the law, “they may not find physicians, nurses, ultrasound technicians, staff members willing to work behind the desk, because this law targets all of them,” he said.

Plus, clinics run the risk of becoming permanent defendants because the law does not prohibit multiple suits, he said.

Whole Woman’s Health asked the justices to stop the law by preventing the state’s clerks from filing cases.
 

Federal standing not as clear

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas on September 9, saying the law negated the constitutional right to an abortion.

“The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at the time.

At the court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar called it a “brazen attack” on the supremacy of federal law and said it would open the door to other states mounting similar challenges.

Justice Kagan seemed to agree.

“The entire point of this law, its purpose, and its effect is to find the chink in the armor of Ex parte Young,” a 1908 law that “set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws,” she said, decrying that “after all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision.”

Judge Stone waved off the concerns. “Nothing in this law even pretends that Texas courts could evade that because it can’t,” he said.

“Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their unpreferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law — that this Court has laid down as to the content of those rights,” said Justice Kagan.

Justice Kavanaugh also seemed concerned about that possibility.

“It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights if this position is accepted here,” he said, citing a brief submitted by the Firearms Policy Coalition that supported the Whole Woman’s Health challenge.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed dubious that the Texas law would undercut anybody’s right to challenge.

“Often constitutional rights, of course, can only be enforced in a defensive posture, when an individual is faced either with potential liability, punitive damages, but also, of course, civil fines — fines and even criminal sanction, including prison time,” he said.

Judge Stone argued that the U.S. government is “not a proper plaintiff” and did not have the right to sue Texas or any of its officials because none were involved in enforcing the law. If the federal government didn’t like the law, it should ask Congress to fix it, said Judge Stone.

After the hearing, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reiterated that position.

“The Biden Administration does not have the power to sue a state, such as Texas, just because it disagrees with a state law that protects the unborn,” he said in a statement.

A ruling on the challenges will not put an end to the litigation over SB 8.

“Even if the Supreme Court does rule that the abortion provider plaintiffs are allowed to sue, it is likely that there will still need to be more litigation in a federal trial court before SB 8 is actually determined to be unconstitutional and is blocked by a court order,” wrote Ian Millhiser, a Supreme Court scholar, after the hearing.

A federal judge in Austin did approve the Department of Justice’s request for a temporary halt to the law in October, but days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it could go back into effect while the legal questions were being pondered in the courts.

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

During over 3 hours of oral arguments on Nov. 1, a seeming majority of Supreme Court justices appeared receptive to blocking a Texas law that essentially bans abortion after 6 weeks.

They seemed less certain about whether the federal government — which is also challenging the law — was within its rights to sue Texas.

Senate Bill 8, which went into effect September 1, allows any private citizen to file suit anywhere in the state against anyone who performs, induces, or “aids or abets” an abortion. If successful in court, the plaintiff is entitled to at least $10,000 and does not have to pay attorneys’ fees; rather, defendants are required to pay all legal costs.

In September, most justices denied an emergency request to stop the law but agreed to quickly hear the challenges in person.

At the Nov. 1 hearing, it appeared that a few justices who had let the law stand — notably conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — were now agreeing that its challengers, in particular the abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, might have a legal basis to move forward.

“I think it’s pretty likely the Court is going to do something that allows ‘someone’s’ suit against SB 8 to go ahead,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, a Houston attorney, after the hearing. “I don’t know when they’re going to do that.”

The Supreme Court usually issues its opinions months after arguments. Since these two challenges — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and US v. Texas —  were heard on a faster schedule, there’s speculation that a decision could also come quickly.

“The court clearly is in a hurry,” wrote Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler before the hearing in a post on court-tracking site SCOTUSblog. She said the court seems to be taking the abortion issue as seriously as most Americans, and that the justices could rule before it hears oral arguments on December 1 in a Mississippi case directly challenging Roe v. Wade.

In addition, data shows abortions have been severely curtailed in Texas since the law took effect — by as much as 50% according to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin. They reported that 2,164 abortions were provided in September 2021, compared with 4,313 in September 2020.

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court,” said Justice Elena Kagan, clarifying that it was every woman who had not made a decision by 6 weeks.

“Usually, in these chilling effect cases, we’re kind of guessing,” she said. “Here, we’re not guessing. We know exactly what has happened as a result of this law. It has chilled everybody on the ground.”

Judge Edward Stone II, an attorney with the Texas Attorney General’s Office who argued for the state, denied Justice Kagan’s assertion.

Nineteen medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Physicians, filed a friend of the court brief supporting both challenges, saying the Texas law allows legislators to interfere with the patient–doctor relationship and that it limits treatment options.

Texas argued that the only way to challenge the law at the federal level would be to be sued first.

Marc A. Hearron, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights who argued for Whole Woman’s Health, said that was untenable.

“What my friends on the other side are saying is that clinics should just violate the law,” and “subject themselves to the risk that they will be forced to close their doors,” said Mr. Hearron. 

But even if providers decide to violate the law, “they may not find physicians, nurses, ultrasound technicians, staff members willing to work behind the desk, because this law targets all of them,” he said.

Plus, clinics run the risk of becoming permanent defendants because the law does not prohibit multiple suits, he said.

Whole Woman’s Health asked the justices to stop the law by preventing the state’s clerks from filing cases.
 

Federal standing not as clear

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas on September 9, saying the law negated the constitutional right to an abortion.

“The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at the time.

At the court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar called it a “brazen attack” on the supremacy of federal law and said it would open the door to other states mounting similar challenges.

Justice Kagan seemed to agree.

“The entire point of this law, its purpose, and its effect is to find the chink in the armor of Ex parte Young,” a 1908 law that “set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws,” she said, decrying that “after all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision.”

Judge Stone waved off the concerns. “Nothing in this law even pretends that Texas courts could evade that because it can’t,” he said.

“Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their unpreferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law — that this Court has laid down as to the content of those rights,” said Justice Kagan.

Justice Kavanaugh also seemed concerned about that possibility.

“It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights if this position is accepted here,” he said, citing a brief submitted by the Firearms Policy Coalition that supported the Whole Woman’s Health challenge.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed dubious that the Texas law would undercut anybody’s right to challenge.

“Often constitutional rights, of course, can only be enforced in a defensive posture, when an individual is faced either with potential liability, punitive damages, but also, of course, civil fines — fines and even criminal sanction, including prison time,” he said.

Judge Stone argued that the U.S. government is “not a proper plaintiff” and did not have the right to sue Texas or any of its officials because none were involved in enforcing the law. If the federal government didn’t like the law, it should ask Congress to fix it, said Judge Stone.

After the hearing, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reiterated that position.

“The Biden Administration does not have the power to sue a state, such as Texas, just because it disagrees with a state law that protects the unborn,” he said in a statement.

A ruling on the challenges will not put an end to the litigation over SB 8.

“Even if the Supreme Court does rule that the abortion provider plaintiffs are allowed to sue, it is likely that there will still need to be more litigation in a federal trial court before SB 8 is actually determined to be unconstitutional and is blocked by a court order,” wrote Ian Millhiser, a Supreme Court scholar, after the hearing.

A federal judge in Austin did approve the Department of Justice’s request for a temporary halt to the law in October, but days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it could go back into effect while the legal questions were being pondered in the courts.

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

During over 3 hours of oral arguments on Nov. 1, a seeming majority of Supreme Court justices appeared receptive to blocking a Texas law that essentially bans abortion after 6 weeks.

They seemed less certain about whether the federal government — which is also challenging the law — was within its rights to sue Texas.

Senate Bill 8, which went into effect September 1, allows any private citizen to file suit anywhere in the state against anyone who performs, induces, or “aids or abets” an abortion. If successful in court, the plaintiff is entitled to at least $10,000 and does not have to pay attorneys’ fees; rather, defendants are required to pay all legal costs.

In September, most justices denied an emergency request to stop the law but agreed to quickly hear the challenges in person.

At the Nov. 1 hearing, it appeared that a few justices who had let the law stand — notably conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — were now agreeing that its challengers, in particular the abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, might have a legal basis to move forward.

“I think it’s pretty likely the Court is going to do something that allows ‘someone’s’ suit against SB 8 to go ahead,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, a Houston attorney, after the hearing. “I don’t know when they’re going to do that.”

The Supreme Court usually issues its opinions months after arguments. Since these two challenges — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and US v. Texas —  were heard on a faster schedule, there’s speculation that a decision could also come quickly.

“The court clearly is in a hurry,” wrote Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler before the hearing in a post on court-tracking site SCOTUSblog. She said the court seems to be taking the abortion issue as seriously as most Americans, and that the justices could rule before it hears oral arguments on December 1 in a Mississippi case directly challenging Roe v. Wade.

In addition, data shows abortions have been severely curtailed in Texas since the law took effect — by as much as 50% according to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin. They reported that 2,164 abortions were provided in September 2021, compared with 4,313 in September 2020.

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court,” said Justice Elena Kagan, clarifying that it was every woman who had not made a decision by 6 weeks.

“Usually, in these chilling effect cases, we’re kind of guessing,” she said. “Here, we’re not guessing. We know exactly what has happened as a result of this law. It has chilled everybody on the ground.”

Judge Edward Stone II, an attorney with the Texas Attorney General’s Office who argued for the state, denied Justice Kagan’s assertion.

Nineteen medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Physicians, filed a friend of the court brief supporting both challenges, saying the Texas law allows legislators to interfere with the patient–doctor relationship and that it limits treatment options.

Texas argued that the only way to challenge the law at the federal level would be to be sued first.

Marc A. Hearron, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights who argued for Whole Woman’s Health, said that was untenable.

“What my friends on the other side are saying is that clinics should just violate the law,” and “subject themselves to the risk that they will be forced to close their doors,” said Mr. Hearron. 

But even if providers decide to violate the law, “they may not find physicians, nurses, ultrasound technicians, staff members willing to work behind the desk, because this law targets all of them,” he said.

Plus, clinics run the risk of becoming permanent defendants because the law does not prohibit multiple suits, he said.

Whole Woman’s Health asked the justices to stop the law by preventing the state’s clerks from filing cases.
 

Federal standing not as clear

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas on September 9, saying the law negated the constitutional right to an abortion.

“The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at the time.

At the court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar called it a “brazen attack” on the supremacy of federal law and said it would open the door to other states mounting similar challenges.

Justice Kagan seemed to agree.

“The entire point of this law, its purpose, and its effect is to find the chink in the armor of Ex parte Young,” a 1908 law that “set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws,” she said, decrying that “after all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision.”

Judge Stone waved off the concerns. “Nothing in this law even pretends that Texas courts could evade that because it can’t,” he said.

“Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their unpreferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law — that this Court has laid down as to the content of those rights,” said Justice Kagan.

Justice Kavanaugh also seemed concerned about that possibility.

“It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights if this position is accepted here,” he said, citing a brief submitted by the Firearms Policy Coalition that supported the Whole Woman’s Health challenge.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed dubious that the Texas law would undercut anybody’s right to challenge.

“Often constitutional rights, of course, can only be enforced in a defensive posture, when an individual is faced either with potential liability, punitive damages, but also, of course, civil fines — fines and even criminal sanction, including prison time,” he said.

Judge Stone argued that the U.S. government is “not a proper plaintiff” and did not have the right to sue Texas or any of its officials because none were involved in enforcing the law. If the federal government didn’t like the law, it should ask Congress to fix it, said Judge Stone.

After the hearing, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reiterated that position.

“The Biden Administration does not have the power to sue a state, such as Texas, just because it disagrees with a state law that protects the unborn,” he said in a statement.

A ruling on the challenges will not put an end to the litigation over SB 8.

“Even if the Supreme Court does rule that the abortion provider plaintiffs are allowed to sue, it is likely that there will still need to be more litigation in a federal trial court before SB 8 is actually determined to be unconstitutional and is blocked by a court order,” wrote Ian Millhiser, a Supreme Court scholar, after the hearing.

A federal judge in Austin did approve the Department of Justice’s request for a temporary halt to the law in October, but days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it could go back into effect while the legal questions were being pondered in the courts.

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

Anesthesiologists charge private insurers more than 300% above Medicare rates, a markup that is higher than that of 16 other specialties, according to a study released by the Urban Institute.

The Washington-based nonprofit institute found that the lowest markups were in psychiatry, ophthalmology, ob.gyn., family medicine, gastroenterology, and internal medicine, at 110%-120% of Medicare rates. Dermatology on average charged just 90% of Medicare rates.

In the middle are cardiology and cardiovascular surgery (130%), urology (130%), general surgery, surgical and radiation oncology (all at 140%), and orthopedics (150%).

At the top end were radiology (180%), neurosurgery (220%), emergency and critical care (250%), and anesthesiology (330%).

The wide variation in payments could be cited in support of the idea of applying Medicare rates across all physician specialties, say the study authors. Although lowering practitioner payments might lead to savings, it “will also create more pushback from providers, especially if these rates are introduced in the employer market,” write researchers Stacey McMorrow, PhD, Robert A. Berenson, MD, and John Holahan, PhD.

It is not known whether lowering commercial payment rates might decrease patient access, they write.

The authors also note that specialties in which the potential for a fee reduction was greatest were also the specialties for which baseline compensation was highest – from $350,000 annually for emergency physicians to $800,000 a year for neurosurgeons. Annual compensation for ob.gyns., dermatologists, and opthalmologists is about $350,000 a year, which suggests that “these specialties are similarly well compensated by both Medicare and commercial insurers,” the authors write.

The investigators assessed the top 20 procedure codes by expenditure in each of 17 physician specialties. They estimated the commercial-to-Medicare payment ratio for each service and constructed weighted averages across services for each specialty at the national level and for 12 states for which data for all the specialties and services were available.

The researchers analyzed claims from the FAIR Health database between March 2019 and March 2020. That database represents 60 insurers covering 150 million people.

Pediatric and geriatric specialties, nonphysician practitioners, out-of-network clinicians, and ambulatory surgery center claims were excluded. Codes with modifiers, J codes, and clinical laboratory services were also not included.

The charges used in the study were not the actual contracted rates. The authors instead used “imputed allowed amounts” for each claim line. That method was used to protect the confidentiality of the negotiated rates.

With regard to all specialties, the lowest compensated services were procedures, evaluation and management, and tests, which received 140%-150% of the Medicare rate. Treatments and imaging were marked up 160%. Anesthesia was reimbursed at a rate 330% higher than the rate Medicare would pay.

The authors also assessed geographic variation for the 12 states for which they had data.

Similar to findings in other studies, the researchers found that the markup was lowest in Pennsylvania (120%) and highest in Wisconsin (260%). The U.S. average was 160%. California and Missouri were at 150%; Michigan was right at the average.

For physicians in Illinois, Louisiana, Colorado, Texas, and New York, markups were 170%-180% over the Medicare rate. Markups for clinicians in New Jersey (190%) and Arizona (200%) were closest to the Wisconsin rate.

The authors note some study limitations, including the fact that they excluded out-of-network practitioners, “and such payments may disproportionately affect certain specialties.”

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

Anesthesiologists charge private insurers more than 300% above Medicare rates, a markup that is higher than that of 16 other specialties, according to a study released by the Urban Institute.

The Washington-based nonprofit institute found that the lowest markups were in psychiatry, ophthalmology, ob.gyn., family medicine, gastroenterology, and internal medicine, at 110%-120% of Medicare rates. Dermatology on average charged just 90% of Medicare rates.

In the middle are cardiology and cardiovascular surgery (130%), urology (130%), general surgery, surgical and radiation oncology (all at 140%), and orthopedics (150%).

At the top end were radiology (180%), neurosurgery (220%), emergency and critical care (250%), and anesthesiology (330%).

The wide variation in payments could be cited in support of the idea of applying Medicare rates across all physician specialties, say the study authors. Although lowering practitioner payments might lead to savings, it “will also create more pushback from providers, especially if these rates are introduced in the employer market,” write researchers Stacey McMorrow, PhD, Robert A. Berenson, MD, and John Holahan, PhD.

It is not known whether lowering commercial payment rates might decrease patient access, they write.

The authors also note that specialties in which the potential for a fee reduction was greatest were also the specialties for which baseline compensation was highest – from $350,000 annually for emergency physicians to $800,000 a year for neurosurgeons. Annual compensation for ob.gyns., dermatologists, and opthalmologists is about $350,000 a year, which suggests that “these specialties are similarly well compensated by both Medicare and commercial insurers,” the authors write.

The investigators assessed the top 20 procedure codes by expenditure in each of 17 physician specialties. They estimated the commercial-to-Medicare payment ratio for each service and constructed weighted averages across services for each specialty at the national level and for 12 states for which data for all the specialties and services were available.

The researchers analyzed claims from the FAIR Health database between March 2019 and March 2020. That database represents 60 insurers covering 150 million people.

Pediatric and geriatric specialties, nonphysician practitioners, out-of-network clinicians, and ambulatory surgery center claims were excluded. Codes with modifiers, J codes, and clinical laboratory services were also not included.

The charges used in the study were not the actual contracted rates. The authors instead used “imputed allowed amounts” for each claim line. That method was used to protect the confidentiality of the negotiated rates.

With regard to all specialties, the lowest compensated services were procedures, evaluation and management, and tests, which received 140%-150% of the Medicare rate. Treatments and imaging were marked up 160%. Anesthesia was reimbursed at a rate 330% higher than the rate Medicare would pay.

The authors also assessed geographic variation for the 12 states for which they had data.

Similar to findings in other studies, the researchers found that the markup was lowest in Pennsylvania (120%) and highest in Wisconsin (260%). The U.S. average was 160%. California and Missouri were at 150%; Michigan was right at the average.

For physicians in Illinois, Louisiana, Colorado, Texas, and New York, markups were 170%-180% over the Medicare rate. Markups for clinicians in New Jersey (190%) and Arizona (200%) were closest to the Wisconsin rate.

The authors note some study limitations, including the fact that they excluded out-of-network practitioners, “and such payments may disproportionately affect certain specialties.”

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

Anesthesiologists charge private insurers more than 300% above Medicare rates, a markup that is higher than that of 16 other specialties, according to a study released by the Urban Institute.

The Washington-based nonprofit institute found that the lowest markups were in psychiatry, ophthalmology, ob.gyn., family medicine, gastroenterology, and internal medicine, at 110%-120% of Medicare rates. Dermatology on average charged just 90% of Medicare rates.

In the middle are cardiology and cardiovascular surgery (130%), urology (130%), general surgery, surgical and radiation oncology (all at 140%), and orthopedics (150%).

At the top end were radiology (180%), neurosurgery (220%), emergency and critical care (250%), and anesthesiology (330%).

The wide variation in payments could be cited in support of the idea of applying Medicare rates across all physician specialties, say the study authors. Although lowering practitioner payments might lead to savings, it “will also create more pushback from providers, especially if these rates are introduced in the employer market,” write researchers Stacey McMorrow, PhD, Robert A. Berenson, MD, and John Holahan, PhD.

It is not known whether lowering commercial payment rates might decrease patient access, they write.

The authors also note that specialties in which the potential for a fee reduction was greatest were also the specialties for which baseline compensation was highest – from $350,000 annually for emergency physicians to $800,000 a year for neurosurgeons. Annual compensation for ob.gyns., dermatologists, and opthalmologists is about $350,000 a year, which suggests that “these specialties are similarly well compensated by both Medicare and commercial insurers,” the authors write.

The investigators assessed the top 20 procedure codes by expenditure in each of 17 physician specialties. They estimated the commercial-to-Medicare payment ratio for each service and constructed weighted averages across services for each specialty at the national level and for 12 states for which data for all the specialties and services were available.

The researchers analyzed claims from the FAIR Health database between March 2019 and March 2020. That database represents 60 insurers covering 150 million people.

Pediatric and geriatric specialties, nonphysician practitioners, out-of-network clinicians, and ambulatory surgery center claims were excluded. Codes with modifiers, J codes, and clinical laboratory services were also not included.

The charges used in the study were not the actual contracted rates. The authors instead used “imputed allowed amounts” for each claim line. That method was used to protect the confidentiality of the negotiated rates.

With regard to all specialties, the lowest compensated services were procedures, evaluation and management, and tests, which received 140%-150% of the Medicare rate. Treatments and imaging were marked up 160%. Anesthesia was reimbursed at a rate 330% higher than the rate Medicare would pay.

The authors also assessed geographic variation for the 12 states for which they had data.

Similar to findings in other studies, the researchers found that the markup was lowest in Pennsylvania (120%) and highest in Wisconsin (260%). The U.S. average was 160%. California and Missouri were at 150%; Michigan was right at the average.

For physicians in Illinois, Louisiana, Colorado, Texas, and New York, markups were 170%-180% over the Medicare rate. Markups for clinicians in New Jersey (190%) and Arizona (200%) were closest to the Wisconsin rate.

The authors note some study limitations, including the fact that they excluded out-of-network practitioners, “and such payments may disproportionately affect certain specialties.”

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has approved Colorado’s request to require some private insurers in the state to cover gender-affirming care.

The approval means transgender-related care must be included as part of the essential benefits offered on the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, which includes private individual and small group insurance plans. The coverage will start Jan. 1, 2023. Colorado is the first state in the United States to require such coverage.

The HHS notes that gender-affirming treatments to be covered include eye and lid modifications, face tightening, facial bone remodeling for facial feminization, breast/chest construction and reductions, and laser hair removal.

“I am proud to stand with Colorado to remove barriers that have historically made it difficult for transgender people to access health coverage and medical care,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.

“Colorado’s expansion of their essential health benefits to include gender-affirming surgery and other treatments is a model for other states to follow, and we invite other states to follow suit,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure in the statement.

Medicaid already covers comprehensive transgender care in Colorado.

The LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Colorado estimated that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, only 5% of the state’s LGBTQ+ community was uninsured in 2019, compared to 10% in 2011.

However, 34% of transgender respondents to a One Colorado poll in 2018 said they had been denied coverage for an LGBTQ-specific medical service, such as gender-affirming care. Sixty-two percent said that a lack of insurance or limited insurance was a barrier to care; 84% said another barrier was the lack of adequately trained mental and behavioral health professionals.
 

Mental health also covered

The Colorado plan requires individual and small group plans to cover an annual 45- to 60-minute mental health wellness exam with a qualified mental health care practitioner. The visit can include behavioral health screening, education and consultation about healthy lifestyle changes, referrals to mental health treatment, and discussion of potential medication options.

The plans also must cover an additional 15 medications as alternatives to opioids and up to six acupuncture visits annually.

“This plan expands access to mental health services for Coloradans while helping those fighting substance abuse to overcome their addiction,” said Governor Jared Polis in a statement.

“This improves care for Coloradans and ensures that even more Coloradans have access to help when they need it,” he said.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has approved Colorado’s request to require some private insurers in the state to cover gender-affirming care.

The approval means transgender-related care must be included as part of the essential benefits offered on the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, which includes private individual and small group insurance plans. The coverage will start Jan. 1, 2023. Colorado is the first state in the United States to require such coverage.

The HHS notes that gender-affirming treatments to be covered include eye and lid modifications, face tightening, facial bone remodeling for facial feminization, breast/chest construction and reductions, and laser hair removal.

“I am proud to stand with Colorado to remove barriers that have historically made it difficult for transgender people to access health coverage and medical care,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.

“Colorado’s expansion of their essential health benefits to include gender-affirming surgery and other treatments is a model for other states to follow, and we invite other states to follow suit,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure in the statement.

Medicaid already covers comprehensive transgender care in Colorado.

The LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Colorado estimated that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, only 5% of the state’s LGBTQ+ community was uninsured in 2019, compared to 10% in 2011.

However, 34% of transgender respondents to a One Colorado poll in 2018 said they had been denied coverage for an LGBTQ-specific medical service, such as gender-affirming care. Sixty-two percent said that a lack of insurance or limited insurance was a barrier to care; 84% said another barrier was the lack of adequately trained mental and behavioral health professionals.
 

Mental health also covered

The Colorado plan requires individual and small group plans to cover an annual 45- to 60-minute mental health wellness exam with a qualified mental health care practitioner. The visit can include behavioral health screening, education and consultation about healthy lifestyle changes, referrals to mental health treatment, and discussion of potential medication options.

The plans also must cover an additional 15 medications as alternatives to opioids and up to six acupuncture visits annually.

“This plan expands access to mental health services for Coloradans while helping those fighting substance abuse to overcome their addiction,” said Governor Jared Polis in a statement.

“This improves care for Coloradans and ensures that even more Coloradans have access to help when they need it,” he said.

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has approved Colorado’s request to require some private insurers in the state to cover gender-affirming care.

The approval means transgender-related care must be included as part of the essential benefits offered on the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, which includes private individual and small group insurance plans. The coverage will start Jan. 1, 2023. Colorado is the first state in the United States to require such coverage.

The HHS notes that gender-affirming treatments to be covered include eye and lid modifications, face tightening, facial bone remodeling for facial feminization, breast/chest construction and reductions, and laser hair removal.

“I am proud to stand with Colorado to remove barriers that have historically made it difficult for transgender people to access health coverage and medical care,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.

“Colorado’s expansion of their essential health benefits to include gender-affirming surgery and other treatments is a model for other states to follow, and we invite other states to follow suit,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure in the statement.

Medicaid already covers comprehensive transgender care in Colorado.

The LGBTQ+ advocacy group One Colorado estimated that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, only 5% of the state’s LGBTQ+ community was uninsured in 2019, compared to 10% in 2011.

However, 34% of transgender respondents to a One Colorado poll in 2018 said they had been denied coverage for an LGBTQ-specific medical service, such as gender-affirming care. Sixty-two percent said that a lack of insurance or limited insurance was a barrier to care; 84% said another barrier was the lack of adequately trained mental and behavioral health professionals.
 

Mental health also covered

The Colorado plan requires individual and small group plans to cover an annual 45- to 60-minute mental health wellness exam with a qualified mental health care practitioner. The visit can include behavioral health screening, education and consultation about healthy lifestyle changes, referrals to mental health treatment, and discussion of potential medication options.

The plans also must cover an additional 15 medications as alternatives to opioids and up to six acupuncture visits annually.

“This plan expands access to mental health services for Coloradans while helping those fighting substance abuse to overcome their addiction,” said Governor Jared Polis in a statement.

“This improves care for Coloradans and ensures that even more Coloradans have access to help when they need it,” he said.

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