User login
Dermatologist arrested for allegedly poisoning radiologist husband
It is a story that has quickly gone viral around the world:
Yue Yu, MD, aged 45, was booked into the Orange County Jail on Aug. 4, after Irvine Police had been called to her residence that day by her husband, Jack Chen, MD, 53, a radiologist. Dr. Chen provided the police with video evidence that he said showed Dr. Yu pouring a drain-opening chemical into his hot lemonade drink.
“The victim sustained significant internal injuries but is expected to recover,” the Irvine police department said in a statement.
Dr. Yu was released after paying a $30,000 bond and has not been formally charged, according to the New York Post.
In a statement to the court on Aug. 5, Dr. Chen said he and the couple’s two children had long suffered verbal abuse from his wife and her mother, according to the Post. Multiple news organizations reported that Dr. Chen filed for divorce and also for a restraining order against Dr. Yu on that day.
After feeling ill for months – and being diagnosed with ulcers and esophageal inflammation – Dr. Chen reportedly set up video cameras in the couple’s house. He said he caught Dr. Yu on camera pouring something into his drink on several occasions in July.
According to NBC News, Dr. Yu’s attorney, David E. Wohl, said that Dr. Yu “vehemently and unequivocally denies ever attempting to poison her husband or anyone else.”
Dr. Yu received her medical degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2006 and has no disciplinary actions against her, according to the Medical Board of California. She was head of dermatology at Mission Heritage Medical Group, but her name and information have been scrubbed from that group’s website. Mission Heritage is affiliated with Providence Mission Hospital. A spokesperson for the hospital told NBC News that it is cooperating with the police investigation and that no patients are in danger.
The dermatologist is due to report back to court in November, NBC News said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It is a story that has quickly gone viral around the world:
Yue Yu, MD, aged 45, was booked into the Orange County Jail on Aug. 4, after Irvine Police had been called to her residence that day by her husband, Jack Chen, MD, 53, a radiologist. Dr. Chen provided the police with video evidence that he said showed Dr. Yu pouring a drain-opening chemical into his hot lemonade drink.
“The victim sustained significant internal injuries but is expected to recover,” the Irvine police department said in a statement.
Dr. Yu was released after paying a $30,000 bond and has not been formally charged, according to the New York Post.
In a statement to the court on Aug. 5, Dr. Chen said he and the couple’s two children had long suffered verbal abuse from his wife and her mother, according to the Post. Multiple news organizations reported that Dr. Chen filed for divorce and also for a restraining order against Dr. Yu on that day.
After feeling ill for months – and being diagnosed with ulcers and esophageal inflammation – Dr. Chen reportedly set up video cameras in the couple’s house. He said he caught Dr. Yu on camera pouring something into his drink on several occasions in July.
According to NBC News, Dr. Yu’s attorney, David E. Wohl, said that Dr. Yu “vehemently and unequivocally denies ever attempting to poison her husband or anyone else.”
Dr. Yu received her medical degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2006 and has no disciplinary actions against her, according to the Medical Board of California. She was head of dermatology at Mission Heritage Medical Group, but her name and information have been scrubbed from that group’s website. Mission Heritage is affiliated with Providence Mission Hospital. A spokesperson for the hospital told NBC News that it is cooperating with the police investigation and that no patients are in danger.
The dermatologist is due to report back to court in November, NBC News said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It is a story that has quickly gone viral around the world:
Yue Yu, MD, aged 45, was booked into the Orange County Jail on Aug. 4, after Irvine Police had been called to her residence that day by her husband, Jack Chen, MD, 53, a radiologist. Dr. Chen provided the police with video evidence that he said showed Dr. Yu pouring a drain-opening chemical into his hot lemonade drink.
“The victim sustained significant internal injuries but is expected to recover,” the Irvine police department said in a statement.
Dr. Yu was released after paying a $30,000 bond and has not been formally charged, according to the New York Post.
In a statement to the court on Aug. 5, Dr. Chen said he and the couple’s two children had long suffered verbal abuse from his wife and her mother, according to the Post. Multiple news organizations reported that Dr. Chen filed for divorce and also for a restraining order against Dr. Yu on that day.
After feeling ill for months – and being diagnosed with ulcers and esophageal inflammation – Dr. Chen reportedly set up video cameras in the couple’s house. He said he caught Dr. Yu on camera pouring something into his drink on several occasions in July.
According to NBC News, Dr. Yu’s attorney, David E. Wohl, said that Dr. Yu “vehemently and unequivocally denies ever attempting to poison her husband or anyone else.”
Dr. Yu received her medical degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2006 and has no disciplinary actions against her, according to the Medical Board of California. She was head of dermatology at Mission Heritage Medical Group, but her name and information have been scrubbed from that group’s website. Mission Heritage is affiliated with Providence Mission Hospital. A spokesperson for the hospital told NBC News that it is cooperating with the police investigation and that no patients are in danger.
The dermatologist is due to report back to court in November, NBC News said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
University to train ‘trip facilitators’ for psychedelic therapy
The UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics (BCSP) training program aims to create a cadre of facilitators who will be ready to help if, and when, substances such as psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are approved in the United States, Tina Trujillo, PhD, an associate professor at UC Berkeley’s School of Education, told reporters at a press briefing.
Hallucinogenic drugs are on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Schedule I list because they are considered to have no currently accepted medical use and high abuse potential. But there has been an explosion of research into psychedelics – combined with therapy – as treatment for severe depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance-use disorder, and other mental health conditions. Some 100 clinical trials are underway.
“The estimates are that we’re going to need 100,000 trained psychedelic facilitators once psilocybin and MDMA are approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, which is expected to happen within the next 5 years or so,” said Michael Pollan, co-founder of the BCSP. He is author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a 2018 book about psychedelics, which has been adapted into a four-part docuseries currently streaming on Netflix.
Nine-month program
The first 24 trainees – a mix of physicians, nurses, psychotherapists, and social workers – will undergo 9 months of education and preparation in “the technical, the cultural, the mystical, and the ethical dimensions of psychedelic facilitation,” said Dr. Trujillo.
The BCSP’s Certificate Program in Psychedelic Facilitation will have “an emphasis on both western science and spiritual care traditions,” she said.
Trainees will receive 150 instructional hours and a 25-hour practicum and will take part in a final 5-day retreat. The program will initially focus only on psilocybin, in part because the BCSP is involved in several FDA-approved trials testing the drug.
In one study – which aims to enroll participants in the fall – researchers will use functional MRI to examine the neural correlates of the psychedelic experience in individuals receiving low-dose psilocybin.
Eligible trainees will have an opportunity to participate in the Berkeley psilocybin trials and “increase their first-hand knowledge,” Dr. Trujillo said.
At the conclusion of the training, students will receive a certificate, “not a license or sanction to go off and practice,” she said. She noted that eventually, when facilitation is legal, certificate holders will be able to practice in clinical research settings or in health care settings.
Growing acceptance in psychiatry
Mr. Pollan said there has been a radical change in acceptance of psychedelics as potential therapies.
“The shift from destroyer of young minds in the ‘60s to effective medicine in the 2020s is as sudden as it is confusing for many people,” he said. He noted that the Berkeley center hopes to provide evidence-based information for journalists, the public, and clinicians.
He said that after his book was released, he expected pushback from “mainstream psychiatry.” Instead, he was invited to give grand rounds talks. Psychiatrists are “very open to the potential of psychedelics,” Mr. Pollan said.
“The reason for that, quite frankly, is because they are desperate,” he said. “The tools of conventional psychiatry to deal with things like depression and anxiety and addiction are not very good, and some of them are failing,” he said.
Mr. Pollan cited some other indicators of acceptance. In Oregon, beginning in 2023, psilocybin will be available to anyone older than 21 years but only for use in licensed facilities with licensed facilitators, and the substance must be produced by a licensed manufacturer.
In November, Colorado will ask voters whether they want to follow the Oregon model and legalize psilocybin. If approved, another Colorado ballot initiative would decriminalize possession.
Mr. Pollan noted that Cory Booker, the Democratic Senator from New Jersey, and Rand Paul, a conservative Republican Senator from Kentucky, have found a common cause, introducing legislation to let select terminally ill patients have access to psychedelics and other Schedule I drugs.
Some 400 companies are conducting research on psychedelics. Researchers must have a license from the DEA to obtain and study the substances, Andrea Gomez, assistant professor of neurobiology at UC Berkeley, told reporters.
She said growing interest in the potential of these drugs might lead more researchers to “jump through the hoops” to get the licenses. The floodgates would truly open if the National Institutes of Health started funding studies, she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics (BCSP) training program aims to create a cadre of facilitators who will be ready to help if, and when, substances such as psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are approved in the United States, Tina Trujillo, PhD, an associate professor at UC Berkeley’s School of Education, told reporters at a press briefing.
Hallucinogenic drugs are on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Schedule I list because they are considered to have no currently accepted medical use and high abuse potential. But there has been an explosion of research into psychedelics – combined with therapy – as treatment for severe depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance-use disorder, and other mental health conditions. Some 100 clinical trials are underway.
“The estimates are that we’re going to need 100,000 trained psychedelic facilitators once psilocybin and MDMA are approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, which is expected to happen within the next 5 years or so,” said Michael Pollan, co-founder of the BCSP. He is author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a 2018 book about psychedelics, which has been adapted into a four-part docuseries currently streaming on Netflix.
Nine-month program
The first 24 trainees – a mix of physicians, nurses, psychotherapists, and social workers – will undergo 9 months of education and preparation in “the technical, the cultural, the mystical, and the ethical dimensions of psychedelic facilitation,” said Dr. Trujillo.
The BCSP’s Certificate Program in Psychedelic Facilitation will have “an emphasis on both western science and spiritual care traditions,” she said.
Trainees will receive 150 instructional hours and a 25-hour practicum and will take part in a final 5-day retreat. The program will initially focus only on psilocybin, in part because the BCSP is involved in several FDA-approved trials testing the drug.
In one study – which aims to enroll participants in the fall – researchers will use functional MRI to examine the neural correlates of the psychedelic experience in individuals receiving low-dose psilocybin.
Eligible trainees will have an opportunity to participate in the Berkeley psilocybin trials and “increase their first-hand knowledge,” Dr. Trujillo said.
At the conclusion of the training, students will receive a certificate, “not a license or sanction to go off and practice,” she said. She noted that eventually, when facilitation is legal, certificate holders will be able to practice in clinical research settings or in health care settings.
Growing acceptance in psychiatry
Mr. Pollan said there has been a radical change in acceptance of psychedelics as potential therapies.
“The shift from destroyer of young minds in the ‘60s to effective medicine in the 2020s is as sudden as it is confusing for many people,” he said. He noted that the Berkeley center hopes to provide evidence-based information for journalists, the public, and clinicians.
He said that after his book was released, he expected pushback from “mainstream psychiatry.” Instead, he was invited to give grand rounds talks. Psychiatrists are “very open to the potential of psychedelics,” Mr. Pollan said.
“The reason for that, quite frankly, is because they are desperate,” he said. “The tools of conventional psychiatry to deal with things like depression and anxiety and addiction are not very good, and some of them are failing,” he said.
Mr. Pollan cited some other indicators of acceptance. In Oregon, beginning in 2023, psilocybin will be available to anyone older than 21 years but only for use in licensed facilities with licensed facilitators, and the substance must be produced by a licensed manufacturer.
In November, Colorado will ask voters whether they want to follow the Oregon model and legalize psilocybin. If approved, another Colorado ballot initiative would decriminalize possession.
Mr. Pollan noted that Cory Booker, the Democratic Senator from New Jersey, and Rand Paul, a conservative Republican Senator from Kentucky, have found a common cause, introducing legislation to let select terminally ill patients have access to psychedelics and other Schedule I drugs.
Some 400 companies are conducting research on psychedelics. Researchers must have a license from the DEA to obtain and study the substances, Andrea Gomez, assistant professor of neurobiology at UC Berkeley, told reporters.
She said growing interest in the potential of these drugs might lead more researchers to “jump through the hoops” to get the licenses. The floodgates would truly open if the National Institutes of Health started funding studies, she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics (BCSP) training program aims to create a cadre of facilitators who will be ready to help if, and when, substances such as psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are approved in the United States, Tina Trujillo, PhD, an associate professor at UC Berkeley’s School of Education, told reporters at a press briefing.
Hallucinogenic drugs are on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Schedule I list because they are considered to have no currently accepted medical use and high abuse potential. But there has been an explosion of research into psychedelics – combined with therapy – as treatment for severe depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance-use disorder, and other mental health conditions. Some 100 clinical trials are underway.
“The estimates are that we’re going to need 100,000 trained psychedelic facilitators once psilocybin and MDMA are approved by the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] FDA, which is expected to happen within the next 5 years or so,” said Michael Pollan, co-founder of the BCSP. He is author of “How to Change Your Mind,” a 2018 book about psychedelics, which has been adapted into a four-part docuseries currently streaming on Netflix.
Nine-month program
The first 24 trainees – a mix of physicians, nurses, psychotherapists, and social workers – will undergo 9 months of education and preparation in “the technical, the cultural, the mystical, and the ethical dimensions of psychedelic facilitation,” said Dr. Trujillo.
The BCSP’s Certificate Program in Psychedelic Facilitation will have “an emphasis on both western science and spiritual care traditions,” she said.
Trainees will receive 150 instructional hours and a 25-hour practicum and will take part in a final 5-day retreat. The program will initially focus only on psilocybin, in part because the BCSP is involved in several FDA-approved trials testing the drug.
In one study – which aims to enroll participants in the fall – researchers will use functional MRI to examine the neural correlates of the psychedelic experience in individuals receiving low-dose psilocybin.
Eligible trainees will have an opportunity to participate in the Berkeley psilocybin trials and “increase their first-hand knowledge,” Dr. Trujillo said.
At the conclusion of the training, students will receive a certificate, “not a license or sanction to go off and practice,” she said. She noted that eventually, when facilitation is legal, certificate holders will be able to practice in clinical research settings or in health care settings.
Growing acceptance in psychiatry
Mr. Pollan said there has been a radical change in acceptance of psychedelics as potential therapies.
“The shift from destroyer of young minds in the ‘60s to effective medicine in the 2020s is as sudden as it is confusing for many people,” he said. He noted that the Berkeley center hopes to provide evidence-based information for journalists, the public, and clinicians.
He said that after his book was released, he expected pushback from “mainstream psychiatry.” Instead, he was invited to give grand rounds talks. Psychiatrists are “very open to the potential of psychedelics,” Mr. Pollan said.
“The reason for that, quite frankly, is because they are desperate,” he said. “The tools of conventional psychiatry to deal with things like depression and anxiety and addiction are not very good, and some of them are failing,” he said.
Mr. Pollan cited some other indicators of acceptance. In Oregon, beginning in 2023, psilocybin will be available to anyone older than 21 years but only for use in licensed facilities with licensed facilitators, and the substance must be produced by a licensed manufacturer.
In November, Colorado will ask voters whether they want to follow the Oregon model and legalize psilocybin. If approved, another Colorado ballot initiative would decriminalize possession.
Mr. Pollan noted that Cory Booker, the Democratic Senator from New Jersey, and Rand Paul, a conservative Republican Senator from Kentucky, have found a common cause, introducing legislation to let select terminally ill patients have access to psychedelics and other Schedule I drugs.
Some 400 companies are conducting research on psychedelics. Researchers must have a license from the DEA to obtain and study the substances, Andrea Gomez, assistant professor of neurobiology at UC Berkeley, told reporters.
She said growing interest in the potential of these drugs might lead more researchers to “jump through the hoops” to get the licenses. The floodgates would truly open if the National Institutes of Health started funding studies, she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Detransitioners lament inadequate clinical support
Transgender people who medically detransition – those who stop or switch gender-affirming hormone therapy or who undergo a reversal of a surgical reconstruction – report feeling stigmatized by clinicians and receiving inadequate professional support, researchers have found. As a result, such patients often avoid health care at the time they stop undergoing medical interventions, and many consider their overall care to be “suboptimal.”
“Clinicians providing gender-affirming care must be careful to avoid shaming patients who are pursuing hormonal cessation or switching or surgical reversals and instead strive to address current mental and physical health needs,” wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.
In a commentary accompanying the journal article, Jack L. Turban, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, argues that discontinuation of gender-affirming care is rare and is “woefully politicized”.
Dr. Turban wrote, “clinical protocols should be in place to support patients who have dynamic needs surrounding these interventions.” He added that “gender-affirming care should encompass the entirety of an individual’s embodiment goals, even when those goals may have pivoted over time.”
For the study, Kinnon R. MacKinnon, PhD, of York University, Toronto, and colleagues conducted video interviews with 28 Canadian individuals older than 18 years. All identified as “detransitioning, retransitioning, detrans, retrans, reidentifying, [experiencing] a shift in gender identity after initiating transition, or having stopped transition.”
Eighteen (64%) were assigned female sex at birth, and 10 (36%) were assigned male sex at birth. Twenty (71%) were aged 20-29; six were aged 30-39, and two were older than 40. Twenty-one were White. One participant who only socially transitioned was removed from the analysis of medical transitions. About half who medically transitioned did so between the ages of 18 and 24.
Reasons for stopping a medical transition included concerns about physical or mental health, surgical complications, postoperative pain, unsupportive parents or romantic partners, discrimination in the workplace, and difficulty accessing clinical care or gender-affirming surgery.
One participant, who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female, said the transition did not help. The process was “a hot mess,” she said. Because she’d known people who had experienced improvements in mental and physical health as a result of transitioning, especially after initiating hormone therapy, she kept going. But, she said, “the farther I got into transition, the worse my [borderline personality disorder] symptoms and my presentation was.”
Lack of clinician support – going ‘cold turkey’
Many individuals reported that they stopped taking hormones “cold turkey,” without the support of a therapist or a clinician, because they did not trust health care providers or had had bad interactions with the medical system.
Most of those who had undergone gender-affirming surgical removal of testes or ovaries in their initial transition said the care they received when they decided to detransition was “bad.” Clinicians were judgmental or had inadequate knowledge about the process, the researchers reported. Some detransitioners said such encounters with clinicians added to their feelings of shame.
One participant who was born female and transitioned to male said she had good relationships with her clinicians and therapist, but she still felt “guilt and shame” about detransitioning back to female. She also worried that those clinicians would view her initial decision as a “mistake” or “through a lens of ‘regret,’ which was inauthentic to her feelings,” the researchers reported.
Another individual who had been assigned female sex at birth said that when she wanted to detransition, she consulted a physician about switching back to estrogen. “She wasn’t very tactful,” the person, who now identifies as female, recalled. “She made comments about how I should have thought about [my initial transition] harder.”
Participants said clinicians lacked sufficient information on detransitioning.
Dr. Turban noted that data are limited on the physiologic and psychological effects of discontinuing exogenous hormone therapy, “because it is such a rare occurrence.” He acknowledged that “more research is needed on the effects of discontinuation so that clinicians can better educate patients.”
The researchers found that most who sought to detransition consulted online forums and networks. The r/detrans discussion group on Reddit, for instance, now has 36,400 members.
Some reported regret that they had transitioned, while others – especially those who identify now as nonbinary or gender-fluid – said they were happy with their initial choice.
Eighteen of the 27 had no regrets and/or had positive feelings about the gender-affirming medications or procedures they had received in the past. Six (22%) had regret, and three were ambivalent. The rate of regret in the relatively small sample is higher than that observed in several other studies. Trans advocates also point out that detransitioning does not necessarily equate with regret.
When asked whether she regretted having undergone a double mastectomy, an individual who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female said, “Some days I do, some days I don’t.” She also said she is not considering breast augmentation. “I’m just going to leave myself alone,” she said, adding that “it’s part of my journey.”
A participant who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as a cisgender woman said that she is mostly regarded by others as a trans person now, although she does not identify that way. But she said taking testosterone in the past was the right decision. “At the time, that was absolutely what I knew I had to do,” she said. “I’m actually not upset about any of the permanent changes it had on my body.”
The researchers noted that some participants said that “their parents or family circumstances explicitly forced, or implicitly encouraged detransition.”
Dr. Turban encouraged clinicians to consider how such external factors might “exacerbate internal factors,” such as internalized transphobia, which could lead to a discontinuation of gender-affirming care.
The study received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Program and a York University SSHRC Explore grant. Travis Salway, MD, a coauthor, has received grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Michael Smith Health Research BC, BC SUPPORT Unit Fraser Centre, Simon Fraser University’s Community-Engaged Research Initiative, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council outside the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was been updated on 8/5/22 to include additional information about detransitioning.
Transgender people who medically detransition – those who stop or switch gender-affirming hormone therapy or who undergo a reversal of a surgical reconstruction – report feeling stigmatized by clinicians and receiving inadequate professional support, researchers have found. As a result, such patients often avoid health care at the time they stop undergoing medical interventions, and many consider their overall care to be “suboptimal.”
“Clinicians providing gender-affirming care must be careful to avoid shaming patients who are pursuing hormonal cessation or switching or surgical reversals and instead strive to address current mental and physical health needs,” wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.
In a commentary accompanying the journal article, Jack L. Turban, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, argues that discontinuation of gender-affirming care is rare and is “woefully politicized”.
Dr. Turban wrote, “clinical protocols should be in place to support patients who have dynamic needs surrounding these interventions.” He added that “gender-affirming care should encompass the entirety of an individual’s embodiment goals, even when those goals may have pivoted over time.”
For the study, Kinnon R. MacKinnon, PhD, of York University, Toronto, and colleagues conducted video interviews with 28 Canadian individuals older than 18 years. All identified as “detransitioning, retransitioning, detrans, retrans, reidentifying, [experiencing] a shift in gender identity after initiating transition, or having stopped transition.”
Eighteen (64%) were assigned female sex at birth, and 10 (36%) were assigned male sex at birth. Twenty (71%) were aged 20-29; six were aged 30-39, and two were older than 40. Twenty-one were White. One participant who only socially transitioned was removed from the analysis of medical transitions. About half who medically transitioned did so between the ages of 18 and 24.
Reasons for stopping a medical transition included concerns about physical or mental health, surgical complications, postoperative pain, unsupportive parents or romantic partners, discrimination in the workplace, and difficulty accessing clinical care or gender-affirming surgery.
One participant, who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female, said the transition did not help. The process was “a hot mess,” she said. Because she’d known people who had experienced improvements in mental and physical health as a result of transitioning, especially after initiating hormone therapy, she kept going. But, she said, “the farther I got into transition, the worse my [borderline personality disorder] symptoms and my presentation was.”
Lack of clinician support – going ‘cold turkey’
Many individuals reported that they stopped taking hormones “cold turkey,” without the support of a therapist or a clinician, because they did not trust health care providers or had had bad interactions with the medical system.
Most of those who had undergone gender-affirming surgical removal of testes or ovaries in their initial transition said the care they received when they decided to detransition was “bad.” Clinicians were judgmental or had inadequate knowledge about the process, the researchers reported. Some detransitioners said such encounters with clinicians added to their feelings of shame.
One participant who was born female and transitioned to male said she had good relationships with her clinicians and therapist, but she still felt “guilt and shame” about detransitioning back to female. She also worried that those clinicians would view her initial decision as a “mistake” or “through a lens of ‘regret,’ which was inauthentic to her feelings,” the researchers reported.
Another individual who had been assigned female sex at birth said that when she wanted to detransition, she consulted a physician about switching back to estrogen. “She wasn’t very tactful,” the person, who now identifies as female, recalled. “She made comments about how I should have thought about [my initial transition] harder.”
Participants said clinicians lacked sufficient information on detransitioning.
Dr. Turban noted that data are limited on the physiologic and psychological effects of discontinuing exogenous hormone therapy, “because it is such a rare occurrence.” He acknowledged that “more research is needed on the effects of discontinuation so that clinicians can better educate patients.”
The researchers found that most who sought to detransition consulted online forums and networks. The r/detrans discussion group on Reddit, for instance, now has 36,400 members.
Some reported regret that they had transitioned, while others – especially those who identify now as nonbinary or gender-fluid – said they were happy with their initial choice.
Eighteen of the 27 had no regrets and/or had positive feelings about the gender-affirming medications or procedures they had received in the past. Six (22%) had regret, and three were ambivalent. The rate of regret in the relatively small sample is higher than that observed in several other studies. Trans advocates also point out that detransitioning does not necessarily equate with regret.
When asked whether she regretted having undergone a double mastectomy, an individual who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female said, “Some days I do, some days I don’t.” She also said she is not considering breast augmentation. “I’m just going to leave myself alone,” she said, adding that “it’s part of my journey.”
A participant who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as a cisgender woman said that she is mostly regarded by others as a trans person now, although she does not identify that way. But she said taking testosterone in the past was the right decision. “At the time, that was absolutely what I knew I had to do,” she said. “I’m actually not upset about any of the permanent changes it had on my body.”
The researchers noted that some participants said that “their parents or family circumstances explicitly forced, or implicitly encouraged detransition.”
Dr. Turban encouraged clinicians to consider how such external factors might “exacerbate internal factors,” such as internalized transphobia, which could lead to a discontinuation of gender-affirming care.
The study received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Program and a York University SSHRC Explore grant. Travis Salway, MD, a coauthor, has received grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Michael Smith Health Research BC, BC SUPPORT Unit Fraser Centre, Simon Fraser University’s Community-Engaged Research Initiative, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council outside the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was been updated on 8/5/22 to include additional information about detransitioning.
Transgender people who medically detransition – those who stop or switch gender-affirming hormone therapy or who undergo a reversal of a surgical reconstruction – report feeling stigmatized by clinicians and receiving inadequate professional support, researchers have found. As a result, such patients often avoid health care at the time they stop undergoing medical interventions, and many consider their overall care to be “suboptimal.”
“Clinicians providing gender-affirming care must be careful to avoid shaming patients who are pursuing hormonal cessation or switching or surgical reversals and instead strive to address current mental and physical health needs,” wrote the authors of the new study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.
In a commentary accompanying the journal article, Jack L. Turban, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, argues that discontinuation of gender-affirming care is rare and is “woefully politicized”.
Dr. Turban wrote, “clinical protocols should be in place to support patients who have dynamic needs surrounding these interventions.” He added that “gender-affirming care should encompass the entirety of an individual’s embodiment goals, even when those goals may have pivoted over time.”
For the study, Kinnon R. MacKinnon, PhD, of York University, Toronto, and colleagues conducted video interviews with 28 Canadian individuals older than 18 years. All identified as “detransitioning, retransitioning, detrans, retrans, reidentifying, [experiencing] a shift in gender identity after initiating transition, or having stopped transition.”
Eighteen (64%) were assigned female sex at birth, and 10 (36%) were assigned male sex at birth. Twenty (71%) were aged 20-29; six were aged 30-39, and two were older than 40. Twenty-one were White. One participant who only socially transitioned was removed from the analysis of medical transitions. About half who medically transitioned did so between the ages of 18 and 24.
Reasons for stopping a medical transition included concerns about physical or mental health, surgical complications, postoperative pain, unsupportive parents or romantic partners, discrimination in the workplace, and difficulty accessing clinical care or gender-affirming surgery.
One participant, who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female, said the transition did not help. The process was “a hot mess,” she said. Because she’d known people who had experienced improvements in mental and physical health as a result of transitioning, especially after initiating hormone therapy, she kept going. But, she said, “the farther I got into transition, the worse my [borderline personality disorder] symptoms and my presentation was.”
Lack of clinician support – going ‘cold turkey’
Many individuals reported that they stopped taking hormones “cold turkey,” without the support of a therapist or a clinician, because they did not trust health care providers or had had bad interactions with the medical system.
Most of those who had undergone gender-affirming surgical removal of testes or ovaries in their initial transition said the care they received when they decided to detransition was “bad.” Clinicians were judgmental or had inadequate knowledge about the process, the researchers reported. Some detransitioners said such encounters with clinicians added to their feelings of shame.
One participant who was born female and transitioned to male said she had good relationships with her clinicians and therapist, but she still felt “guilt and shame” about detransitioning back to female. She also worried that those clinicians would view her initial decision as a “mistake” or “through a lens of ‘regret,’ which was inauthentic to her feelings,” the researchers reported.
Another individual who had been assigned female sex at birth said that when she wanted to detransition, she consulted a physician about switching back to estrogen. “She wasn’t very tactful,” the person, who now identifies as female, recalled. “She made comments about how I should have thought about [my initial transition] harder.”
Participants said clinicians lacked sufficient information on detransitioning.
Dr. Turban noted that data are limited on the physiologic and psychological effects of discontinuing exogenous hormone therapy, “because it is such a rare occurrence.” He acknowledged that “more research is needed on the effects of discontinuation so that clinicians can better educate patients.”
The researchers found that most who sought to detransition consulted online forums and networks. The r/detrans discussion group on Reddit, for instance, now has 36,400 members.
Some reported regret that they had transitioned, while others – especially those who identify now as nonbinary or gender-fluid – said they were happy with their initial choice.
Eighteen of the 27 had no regrets and/or had positive feelings about the gender-affirming medications or procedures they had received in the past. Six (22%) had regret, and three were ambivalent. The rate of regret in the relatively small sample is higher than that observed in several other studies. Trans advocates also point out that detransitioning does not necessarily equate with regret.
When asked whether she regretted having undergone a double mastectomy, an individual who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as female said, “Some days I do, some days I don’t.” She also said she is not considering breast augmentation. “I’m just going to leave myself alone,” she said, adding that “it’s part of my journey.”
A participant who had been assigned female sex at birth and who now identifies as a cisgender woman said that she is mostly regarded by others as a trans person now, although she does not identify that way. But she said taking testosterone in the past was the right decision. “At the time, that was absolutely what I knew I had to do,” she said. “I’m actually not upset about any of the permanent changes it had on my body.”
The researchers noted that some participants said that “their parents or family circumstances explicitly forced, or implicitly encouraged detransition.”
Dr. Turban encouraged clinicians to consider how such external factors might “exacerbate internal factors,” such as internalized transphobia, which could lead to a discontinuation of gender-affirming care.
The study received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Program and a York University SSHRC Explore grant. Travis Salway, MD, a coauthor, has received grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Michael Smith Health Research BC, BC SUPPORT Unit Fraser Centre, Simon Fraser University’s Community-Engaged Research Initiative, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council outside the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was been updated on 8/5/22 to include additional information about detransitioning.
Gender surgeons on TikTok, Instagram: Appropriate or not?
A woman wearing purple surgical scrubs stares into a camera, looking frustrated, but doesn’t speak. Superimposed over her head is the text “just realized I only get to Yeet 4 Teets next week,” and a crying emoji. Rain appears to drip down over her while “Stan” by Eminem plays in the background.
That October 2020 TikTok by Sidhbh Gallagher, MD, a Miami-based plastic surgeon known as @gendersurgeon, had almost 10,000 likes and was tagged #topsurgery, #masculoplasty, #ftm, and #transman, among other hashtags.
“What health check do I have to get in preparation for teetus deletus?” is the question in another Dr. Gallagher TikTok. Dr. Gallagher is a prolific user of social media with over 268K TikTok followers and over 44K Instagram followers. Another Dr. Gallagher TikTok account, @thevagicianmd, has some 7K followers.
Another cosmetic surgeon, Tony Mangubat, MD, known as @Tikdoctony to his more than 200K followers, uses similar hashtags – like #teetusdeleetus – in his TikToks.
Clearly not medical terms, hashtags like #yeettheteet and #teetusdeletus are often used by the transgender community. The posts by Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Mangubat are part of an ever-growing wave of social media activity by medical professionals.
Plastic surgeons have never been shy about advertising their work – and many have taken to social media to do so, including showing before and after photos. A 2020 study published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery found that the majority of such surgeons, especially those in private practice, use social media.
especially to a younger-skewing audience.
Because of the limits on pornography and nudity of social media platforms, most social media posts by gender surgeons are about female-to-male (FTM) mastectomies, the fastest-growing transgender procedure.
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) started separately tracking gender-affirmation procedures in 2015. That year, members reported doing 1,360 FTM procedures.
In 2020, the ASPS further separated procedures into additional categories. That year – when many surgeries were postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic – FTM mastectomies grew by 15%, with 8,548 procedures performed, a far greater number than for any other transgender surgery, and a sixfold increase in the number of procedures done in 2015.
‘Gimmicky,’ but building community
Surgeons interviewed for this article said they use social media primarily to connect with patients and to educate in a light-hearted way.
While Dr. Gallagher acknowledges that using #teetusdeletus is “kind of gimmicky,” she said she doesn’t view it as unprofessional because she is “using the words of the community I serve.” Many of her patients have seen a medical professional “who just didn’t understand what it is to have gender dysphoria, didn’t understand what it is to be trans, so going from that experience to somebody who uses the same language as the community uses can be quite a comfortable experience,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Mangubat, a Seattle-area plastic surgeon who has been doing mastectomies for trans male patients since 1988, said he tailors his TikToks to that group. He likes TikTok – which he started using in early 2021 – because it has rules against bullying, swearing, and pornography, he told this news organization.
“It’s really not ... advertising ... it’s a community-building platform,” said Dr. Mangubat. “If you build community, people will trust you, and if you provide good accurate information, then people will be safer,” he said.
But, “I’m not telling them to come to me,” he stressed.
He always appears in scrubs and doesn’t do music, doesn’t dance, and doesn’t post before and after photos, but he still gets thousands – or sometimes hundreds of thousands – of likes.
His mission, he said, is to answer the community’s questions. “We’re reaching patients that have had their top surgery, that are going to have their top surgery, that are looking for how to get top surgery, that are just starting on testosterone, that haven’t started on testosterone – it’s the whole spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Mangubat.
Risks downplayed?
Other surgeons have expressed concern about ethical boundaries and the tendency of social media posts to downplay risks of what are life-changing procedures.
A 2020 study of YouTube videos on top surgery, for instance, concluded that “there were no unbiased videos by board-certified plastic surgeons explaining the risks, benefits, treatment options, and alternatives to surgery.”
Alison Clayton, MBBS, an Australian psychiatrist, said that social media posts can create false expectations because they emphasize style over substance, omit risks, and can create an unwarranted sense of trust in the doctor that can spill over into the physician-patient relationship.
Dr. Clayton also believes that “the gender-affirming surgical procedures being offered to these youth have a scant empirical evidence base for benefits to psychological health and well-being.”
It is known that a number of those who transition, using either opposite sex hormones and/or surgical procedures, later have regret and “detransition,” but statistics are lacking. It is also a controversial area, with many detransitioners saying they didn’t get appropriate care and weren’t properly assessed before being given hormones or heading to surgery.
Most of the gender surgeons interviewed for this article said they see almost “zero” regret if proper mental health evaluations are performed before surgery, and they added, the procedures can relieve dysphoria.
Nevertheless, posts should not be “all fun and games,” said Josef Hadeed, MD, chair of the ASPS Patient Safety Committee and Public Education Committee and a member of its Social Media Subcommittee.
“When someone makes a decision to undergo a surgical procedure, they should be very aware there are some risks and potentially serious risks involved,” he told this news organization.
The ASPS “wants members to use social media in a judicious manner” in a way that educates the public and encourages patients to learn about a procedure and to consult with board-certified plastic surgeons, said Dr. Hadeed.
The Beverly Hills, Calif.–based surgeon does gender-affirmation procedures himself and uses Instagram, on which he has 53.4K followers, to educate patients and highlight his work using before and after photos.
“I like to think I do it in a very tasteful way,” Dr. Hadeed said. “It’s not in a way that’s sort of suggestive to patients, including minors, that this is something they need to get done, because if they are thinking about getting it done there is a lengthy process that they have to go through before they even set foot in our office.”
And he said “it may be inappropriate” to use certain hashtags or terminology, “even if it does ‘speak’ to the patients. Professionally, plastic surgeons should maintain a higher standard and maintain that even with their social media.”
Marci Bowers, MD, a gynecologic surgeon who performs gender-affirming procedures, and who is transgender herself, agreed.
“Some of the posts out there seem sensational, distasteful, and risk compromising patient confidentiality,” Dr. Bowers said in an interview.
“Much of this seemed to cross the line of good taste and appropriateness,” added Dr. Bowers, who is the incoming president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). “Creating an idealized video without addressing risk is inappropriate and misleading,” she stressed.
“These surgeons would perhaps better serve their clients by focusing on and improving their clinical care,” she added.
Dr. Bowers said that although WPATH has not addressed social media use in the past, its ethics committee will be taking on the topic this year.
Social media posts about gender-affirming procedures “don’t usually talk about the barriers, they don’t talk about bad outcomes, they tend to just focus on success stories,” said Gwendolyn P. Quinn, MD, a bioethicist, and Livia S. Wan, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
But she also sees some positives. The posts can help normalize gender-affirming surgery, and post-procedure photos might “help people realize that they can’t just have everything exactly the way they want it to be,” said Dr. Quinn.
Does social media influence or educate?
Studies have documented the power of social media to influence desire and decisionmaking, especially when it comes to cosmetic surgery.
“The use of social media creates a vague area between patient confidentiality and entertainment,” writes Nisha Gupta and colleagues of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine in a review published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal.
While social media use is on the rise by plastic surgeons and has the potential to educate, it has also “compromised the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship,” they add.
Surgeons can use tools to place themselves higher in searches, and patients might assume that those who have hundreds of thousands of followers “are the most qualified or trusted, although this is not always the case,” they note.
Markus Rach, PhD, a researcher with the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, analyzed the impact of TikTok’s plastic surgery content on how adolescents perceived themselves and how it influenced their decision to have a procedure.
Most TikTok users are under age 24, and #plasticsurgery has a huge viewership with some 3.8 billion views at the time of publication, said Dr. Rach. He found that influencers tended to make adolescents feel bad and want surgery but that plastic surgeons had a moderating effect on both negative feelings and the intent to get surgery.
Dr. Bowers said that, despite her concerns, she does not “believe social media influences like TikTok and Facebook create artificial demand.”
However, Dr. Mangubat said social media can make plastic surgery seem enticing. “It can happen, and it does happen,” he said, but he added that’s true for any cosmetic procedure, not just gender-affirming surgery.
The pitfall with social media is that “patients are being sold a vision of themselves that may or may not be possible,” he observed.
Dr. Quinn worries less about people being talked into a procedure and more about those who don’t want surgery.
“There are people who identify as transgender but do not feel the need to change any parts of their body,” she said. “And that should be okay.”
Concerns about minors
New guidance from WPATH, their Standards of Care (SOC) 8 – the first update in 10 years – are due to be published this month. As reported by this news organization, and as stated in the draft of the SOC 8 published for comment in December 2021, the organization has recommended lowering the age for “top” surgery from 18 to 15 years.
Dr. Clayton has concerns about young people with gender dysphoria, who she says are “often vulnerable youth, many of whom have comorbid psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders.”
“This may contribute to a greater vulnerability of this population to undue influence,” added Dr. Clayton.
Sean Devitt, MD, and Jeffrey M. Kenkel, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, expressed concern that social media posts by plastic surgeons could be especially dangerous for young people.
“Given that the prefrontal cortex, which is largely responsible for impulse control, is not fully developed until the age of 25, is it ethical to allow younger patients to make life-lasting decisions under the guise of education?” they ask in a commentary on the review by Ms. Gupta and colleagues about plastic surgeons’ use of social media. The review did not focus on gender-affirmation procedures.
Many surgeons – but not all – steer clear of genital (“bottom”) surgeries in minors. However, bilateral mastectomies are being performed in those as young as age 13 based on surgeons’ risk-benefit calculus for the patient.
A study, published in May in the Annals of Plastic Surgery, showed there was a 13-fold increase in the number of bilateral mastectomies performed on under-18s between January 2013 and the end of July 2020. Of the 209 minors (age 12-17) who had the surgery, two (0.95%) expressed regret by the time of follow-up, at 3 and 7 years post-operatively, but neither had reversal surgery.
A small 2018 study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, among trans males who had top surgery found high rates of satisfaction, though one of the 68 patients reported experiencing regret “sometimes.” The mean age of patients in the surgical group was 19 years and the youngest patient was 14.
“Most of us who practice heavily in this field will make exceptions, not for genital surgery but typically for top surgery,” said Dr. Gallagher, who added that she operates on one minor [under 18] a month, while doing some 400-500 gender-affirmative surgeries a year. For some patients, “doing nothing isn’t necessarily a no-harm option,” said Dr. Gallagher.
“Arbitrarily picking the age of 18 and sentencing that patient to another year of dysphoria” might not be the best risk-benefit calculus, she said.
Dr. Mangubat agrees, especially if, for example, a trans man develops double D breasts by age 14. “You’ve sentenced them to 4 years of misery” before they can get insurance coverage, he said. His youngest top surgery patient was age 15. He said the person’s family, mental health professional, and primary care physician were all in favor of the procedure.
Dr. Mangubat also noted that some insurers, such as Kaiser Permanente, now cover bilateral mastectomy starting at age 16.
Dr. Quinn, the bioethicist, said not every minor or young adult is equipped to make the best long-term decisions.
She works with younger patients who have cancer, for example, and said her suggestions that they consider fertility preservation are often met with protestations “that they will never have children.”
The same issue arises with transgender patients. They may not want to think about having children or issues such as breast feeding while in their teens or early 20s. “But you know from your experience that they may feel differently in 10 years, but they’re just not in the mind frame to think about it,” said Dr. Quinn.
Some young people may accurately never want children, said Dr. Quinn, “but there is a lack of maturity shown when a person just shuts down a conversation and won’t even listen to infertility threats and potential preservation options.”
Concerns about regret?
Dr. Gallagher said she follows the WPATH standards, which require mental health evaluations, and as a result, “the risk of regret is incredibly low.”
However, one of Dr. Gallagher’s patients who detransitioned, Grace, who goes by @HormoneHangover on social media, said she has taken umbrage at some of the Miami surgeon’s TikToks, including one, “Why might some patients feel sad after surgery ... despite wanting it for so long??”
“This is actually not uncommon with ANY kind of surgery, but it’s temporary!” said the TikTok text. Dr. Gallagher is wearing a red dress and heels and flips her hair while the text scrolls above her.
But to Grace, the TikTok “really bothered me, because sometimes there is regret, and I think that sort of advertising paints a falsely rosy picture,” she said in an interview.
And it is emblematic of what she feels was Dr. Gallagher’s “breezy” approach to explaining the procedure to her. “The surgery itself was a shocking experience for me,” she said. “The physical experience was very jarring. It was very disturbing in a way I hadn’t anticipated or understood in advance,” said Grace.
Dr. Mangubat, who does 100 bilateral mastectomies in trans patients a year, said he goes to great lengths to ensure his patients are good candidates. Everyone – even those who self-pay – must have counseling, and if the individual seems to be considering the surgery because it’s “trendy,” he steers clear.
“If they’re not serious about it, I don’t want to operate on them,” said Dr. Mangubat. “There have been maybe two patients who have come back” to detransition, he said.
Dr. Hadeed also said he has not seen regret. He attributes this to his vetting process, which includes investigating the background of the mental health professionals who write support letters.
“We’ve turned away a lot of patients from our office either because of inadequate letters or because the person writing the letter just doesn’t really have any proper credentials,” he said.
Is social media use by plastic surgeons the new normal?
With so many plastic surgeons – including those who perform transgender procedures – using social media, it may increasingly be just part of doing business.
“Undoubtedly gender surgery teams will have a greater presence on social media in the future,” write Alireza Hamidian Jahromi, MD, and a colleague of the plastic surgery department at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, in a letter published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Kyle R. Latack, MD, and colleagues at the University of Southern California and the University of Michigan, have studied the use of social media by the transgender community and write that they believe “there should be an increased effort to develop high-quality and unbiased resources for patient education that can be made [available] on social media.”
Dr. Gallagher said TikTok helped her erase fear. “A bilateral mastectomy is a scary surgery for an 18-year-old or a 20-year-old,” she said, “but they have to do it for their well-being.”
“That is a criticism I’ve heard – that I seek to minimize it or that I’m flippant about it,” said Dr. Gallagher.
For “top surgery the risk profile is pretty low,” she said, “so what I try to do is educate people that it’s maybe not as scary a procedure as they think.”
Dr. Mangubat, however, is concerned about some of what he sees, especially the explosion of surgeons offering gender-affirming procedures. “Now everybody wants a piece of it,” he said.
“Let’s face it, it’s money now. You get paid for doing this surgery. Hospitals get paid a lot of money for their operating rooms for doing the surgery,” said Dr. Mangubat. “There are some surgeons who believe the transgender community is just another market.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A woman wearing purple surgical scrubs stares into a camera, looking frustrated, but doesn’t speak. Superimposed over her head is the text “just realized I only get to Yeet 4 Teets next week,” and a crying emoji. Rain appears to drip down over her while “Stan” by Eminem plays in the background.
That October 2020 TikTok by Sidhbh Gallagher, MD, a Miami-based plastic surgeon known as @gendersurgeon, had almost 10,000 likes and was tagged #topsurgery, #masculoplasty, #ftm, and #transman, among other hashtags.
“What health check do I have to get in preparation for teetus deletus?” is the question in another Dr. Gallagher TikTok. Dr. Gallagher is a prolific user of social media with over 268K TikTok followers and over 44K Instagram followers. Another Dr. Gallagher TikTok account, @thevagicianmd, has some 7K followers.
Another cosmetic surgeon, Tony Mangubat, MD, known as @Tikdoctony to his more than 200K followers, uses similar hashtags – like #teetusdeleetus – in his TikToks.
Clearly not medical terms, hashtags like #yeettheteet and #teetusdeletus are often used by the transgender community. The posts by Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Mangubat are part of an ever-growing wave of social media activity by medical professionals.
Plastic surgeons have never been shy about advertising their work – and many have taken to social media to do so, including showing before and after photos. A 2020 study published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery found that the majority of such surgeons, especially those in private practice, use social media.
especially to a younger-skewing audience.
Because of the limits on pornography and nudity of social media platforms, most social media posts by gender surgeons are about female-to-male (FTM) mastectomies, the fastest-growing transgender procedure.
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) started separately tracking gender-affirmation procedures in 2015. That year, members reported doing 1,360 FTM procedures.
In 2020, the ASPS further separated procedures into additional categories. That year – when many surgeries were postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic – FTM mastectomies grew by 15%, with 8,548 procedures performed, a far greater number than for any other transgender surgery, and a sixfold increase in the number of procedures done in 2015.
‘Gimmicky,’ but building community
Surgeons interviewed for this article said they use social media primarily to connect with patients and to educate in a light-hearted way.
While Dr. Gallagher acknowledges that using #teetusdeletus is “kind of gimmicky,” she said she doesn’t view it as unprofessional because she is “using the words of the community I serve.” Many of her patients have seen a medical professional “who just didn’t understand what it is to have gender dysphoria, didn’t understand what it is to be trans, so going from that experience to somebody who uses the same language as the community uses can be quite a comfortable experience,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Mangubat, a Seattle-area plastic surgeon who has been doing mastectomies for trans male patients since 1988, said he tailors his TikToks to that group. He likes TikTok – which he started using in early 2021 – because it has rules against bullying, swearing, and pornography, he told this news organization.
“It’s really not ... advertising ... it’s a community-building platform,” said Dr. Mangubat. “If you build community, people will trust you, and if you provide good accurate information, then people will be safer,” he said.
But, “I’m not telling them to come to me,” he stressed.
He always appears in scrubs and doesn’t do music, doesn’t dance, and doesn’t post before and after photos, but he still gets thousands – or sometimes hundreds of thousands – of likes.
His mission, he said, is to answer the community’s questions. “We’re reaching patients that have had their top surgery, that are going to have their top surgery, that are looking for how to get top surgery, that are just starting on testosterone, that haven’t started on testosterone – it’s the whole spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Mangubat.
Risks downplayed?
Other surgeons have expressed concern about ethical boundaries and the tendency of social media posts to downplay risks of what are life-changing procedures.
A 2020 study of YouTube videos on top surgery, for instance, concluded that “there were no unbiased videos by board-certified plastic surgeons explaining the risks, benefits, treatment options, and alternatives to surgery.”
Alison Clayton, MBBS, an Australian psychiatrist, said that social media posts can create false expectations because they emphasize style over substance, omit risks, and can create an unwarranted sense of trust in the doctor that can spill over into the physician-patient relationship.
Dr. Clayton also believes that “the gender-affirming surgical procedures being offered to these youth have a scant empirical evidence base for benefits to psychological health and well-being.”
It is known that a number of those who transition, using either opposite sex hormones and/or surgical procedures, later have regret and “detransition,” but statistics are lacking. It is also a controversial area, with many detransitioners saying they didn’t get appropriate care and weren’t properly assessed before being given hormones or heading to surgery.
Most of the gender surgeons interviewed for this article said they see almost “zero” regret if proper mental health evaluations are performed before surgery, and they added, the procedures can relieve dysphoria.
Nevertheless, posts should not be “all fun and games,” said Josef Hadeed, MD, chair of the ASPS Patient Safety Committee and Public Education Committee and a member of its Social Media Subcommittee.
“When someone makes a decision to undergo a surgical procedure, they should be very aware there are some risks and potentially serious risks involved,” he told this news organization.
The ASPS “wants members to use social media in a judicious manner” in a way that educates the public and encourages patients to learn about a procedure and to consult with board-certified plastic surgeons, said Dr. Hadeed.
The Beverly Hills, Calif.–based surgeon does gender-affirmation procedures himself and uses Instagram, on which he has 53.4K followers, to educate patients and highlight his work using before and after photos.
“I like to think I do it in a very tasteful way,” Dr. Hadeed said. “It’s not in a way that’s sort of suggestive to patients, including minors, that this is something they need to get done, because if they are thinking about getting it done there is a lengthy process that they have to go through before they even set foot in our office.”
And he said “it may be inappropriate” to use certain hashtags or terminology, “even if it does ‘speak’ to the patients. Professionally, plastic surgeons should maintain a higher standard and maintain that even with their social media.”
Marci Bowers, MD, a gynecologic surgeon who performs gender-affirming procedures, and who is transgender herself, agreed.
“Some of the posts out there seem sensational, distasteful, and risk compromising patient confidentiality,” Dr. Bowers said in an interview.
“Much of this seemed to cross the line of good taste and appropriateness,” added Dr. Bowers, who is the incoming president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). “Creating an idealized video without addressing risk is inappropriate and misleading,” she stressed.
“These surgeons would perhaps better serve their clients by focusing on and improving their clinical care,” she added.
Dr. Bowers said that although WPATH has not addressed social media use in the past, its ethics committee will be taking on the topic this year.
Social media posts about gender-affirming procedures “don’t usually talk about the barriers, they don’t talk about bad outcomes, they tend to just focus on success stories,” said Gwendolyn P. Quinn, MD, a bioethicist, and Livia S. Wan, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
But she also sees some positives. The posts can help normalize gender-affirming surgery, and post-procedure photos might “help people realize that they can’t just have everything exactly the way they want it to be,” said Dr. Quinn.
Does social media influence or educate?
Studies have documented the power of social media to influence desire and decisionmaking, especially when it comes to cosmetic surgery.
“The use of social media creates a vague area between patient confidentiality and entertainment,” writes Nisha Gupta and colleagues of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine in a review published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal.
While social media use is on the rise by plastic surgeons and has the potential to educate, it has also “compromised the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship,” they add.
Surgeons can use tools to place themselves higher in searches, and patients might assume that those who have hundreds of thousands of followers “are the most qualified or trusted, although this is not always the case,” they note.
Markus Rach, PhD, a researcher with the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, analyzed the impact of TikTok’s plastic surgery content on how adolescents perceived themselves and how it influenced their decision to have a procedure.
Most TikTok users are under age 24, and #plasticsurgery has a huge viewership with some 3.8 billion views at the time of publication, said Dr. Rach. He found that influencers tended to make adolescents feel bad and want surgery but that plastic surgeons had a moderating effect on both negative feelings and the intent to get surgery.
Dr. Bowers said that, despite her concerns, she does not “believe social media influences like TikTok and Facebook create artificial demand.”
However, Dr. Mangubat said social media can make plastic surgery seem enticing. “It can happen, and it does happen,” he said, but he added that’s true for any cosmetic procedure, not just gender-affirming surgery.
The pitfall with social media is that “patients are being sold a vision of themselves that may or may not be possible,” he observed.
Dr. Quinn worries less about people being talked into a procedure and more about those who don’t want surgery.
“There are people who identify as transgender but do not feel the need to change any parts of their body,” she said. “And that should be okay.”
Concerns about minors
New guidance from WPATH, their Standards of Care (SOC) 8 – the first update in 10 years – are due to be published this month. As reported by this news organization, and as stated in the draft of the SOC 8 published for comment in December 2021, the organization has recommended lowering the age for “top” surgery from 18 to 15 years.
Dr. Clayton has concerns about young people with gender dysphoria, who she says are “often vulnerable youth, many of whom have comorbid psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders.”
“This may contribute to a greater vulnerability of this population to undue influence,” added Dr. Clayton.
Sean Devitt, MD, and Jeffrey M. Kenkel, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, expressed concern that social media posts by plastic surgeons could be especially dangerous for young people.
“Given that the prefrontal cortex, which is largely responsible for impulse control, is not fully developed until the age of 25, is it ethical to allow younger patients to make life-lasting decisions under the guise of education?” they ask in a commentary on the review by Ms. Gupta and colleagues about plastic surgeons’ use of social media. The review did not focus on gender-affirmation procedures.
Many surgeons – but not all – steer clear of genital (“bottom”) surgeries in minors. However, bilateral mastectomies are being performed in those as young as age 13 based on surgeons’ risk-benefit calculus for the patient.
A study, published in May in the Annals of Plastic Surgery, showed there was a 13-fold increase in the number of bilateral mastectomies performed on under-18s between January 2013 and the end of July 2020. Of the 209 minors (age 12-17) who had the surgery, two (0.95%) expressed regret by the time of follow-up, at 3 and 7 years post-operatively, but neither had reversal surgery.
A small 2018 study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, among trans males who had top surgery found high rates of satisfaction, though one of the 68 patients reported experiencing regret “sometimes.” The mean age of patients in the surgical group was 19 years and the youngest patient was 14.
“Most of us who practice heavily in this field will make exceptions, not for genital surgery but typically for top surgery,” said Dr. Gallagher, who added that she operates on one minor [under 18] a month, while doing some 400-500 gender-affirmative surgeries a year. For some patients, “doing nothing isn’t necessarily a no-harm option,” said Dr. Gallagher.
“Arbitrarily picking the age of 18 and sentencing that patient to another year of dysphoria” might not be the best risk-benefit calculus, she said.
Dr. Mangubat agrees, especially if, for example, a trans man develops double D breasts by age 14. “You’ve sentenced them to 4 years of misery” before they can get insurance coverage, he said. His youngest top surgery patient was age 15. He said the person’s family, mental health professional, and primary care physician were all in favor of the procedure.
Dr. Mangubat also noted that some insurers, such as Kaiser Permanente, now cover bilateral mastectomy starting at age 16.
Dr. Quinn, the bioethicist, said not every minor or young adult is equipped to make the best long-term decisions.
She works with younger patients who have cancer, for example, and said her suggestions that they consider fertility preservation are often met with protestations “that they will never have children.”
The same issue arises with transgender patients. They may not want to think about having children or issues such as breast feeding while in their teens or early 20s. “But you know from your experience that they may feel differently in 10 years, but they’re just not in the mind frame to think about it,” said Dr. Quinn.
Some young people may accurately never want children, said Dr. Quinn, “but there is a lack of maturity shown when a person just shuts down a conversation and won’t even listen to infertility threats and potential preservation options.”
Concerns about regret?
Dr. Gallagher said she follows the WPATH standards, which require mental health evaluations, and as a result, “the risk of regret is incredibly low.”
However, one of Dr. Gallagher’s patients who detransitioned, Grace, who goes by @HormoneHangover on social media, said she has taken umbrage at some of the Miami surgeon’s TikToks, including one, “Why might some patients feel sad after surgery ... despite wanting it for so long??”
“This is actually not uncommon with ANY kind of surgery, but it’s temporary!” said the TikTok text. Dr. Gallagher is wearing a red dress and heels and flips her hair while the text scrolls above her.
But to Grace, the TikTok “really bothered me, because sometimes there is regret, and I think that sort of advertising paints a falsely rosy picture,” she said in an interview.
And it is emblematic of what she feels was Dr. Gallagher’s “breezy” approach to explaining the procedure to her. “The surgery itself was a shocking experience for me,” she said. “The physical experience was very jarring. It was very disturbing in a way I hadn’t anticipated or understood in advance,” said Grace.
Dr. Mangubat, who does 100 bilateral mastectomies in trans patients a year, said he goes to great lengths to ensure his patients are good candidates. Everyone – even those who self-pay – must have counseling, and if the individual seems to be considering the surgery because it’s “trendy,” he steers clear.
“If they’re not serious about it, I don’t want to operate on them,” said Dr. Mangubat. “There have been maybe two patients who have come back” to detransition, he said.
Dr. Hadeed also said he has not seen regret. He attributes this to his vetting process, which includes investigating the background of the mental health professionals who write support letters.
“We’ve turned away a lot of patients from our office either because of inadequate letters or because the person writing the letter just doesn’t really have any proper credentials,” he said.
Is social media use by plastic surgeons the new normal?
With so many plastic surgeons – including those who perform transgender procedures – using social media, it may increasingly be just part of doing business.
“Undoubtedly gender surgery teams will have a greater presence on social media in the future,” write Alireza Hamidian Jahromi, MD, and a colleague of the plastic surgery department at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, in a letter published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Kyle R. Latack, MD, and colleagues at the University of Southern California and the University of Michigan, have studied the use of social media by the transgender community and write that they believe “there should be an increased effort to develop high-quality and unbiased resources for patient education that can be made [available] on social media.”
Dr. Gallagher said TikTok helped her erase fear. “A bilateral mastectomy is a scary surgery for an 18-year-old or a 20-year-old,” she said, “but they have to do it for their well-being.”
“That is a criticism I’ve heard – that I seek to minimize it or that I’m flippant about it,” said Dr. Gallagher.
For “top surgery the risk profile is pretty low,” she said, “so what I try to do is educate people that it’s maybe not as scary a procedure as they think.”
Dr. Mangubat, however, is concerned about some of what he sees, especially the explosion of surgeons offering gender-affirming procedures. “Now everybody wants a piece of it,” he said.
“Let’s face it, it’s money now. You get paid for doing this surgery. Hospitals get paid a lot of money for their operating rooms for doing the surgery,” said Dr. Mangubat. “There are some surgeons who believe the transgender community is just another market.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A woman wearing purple surgical scrubs stares into a camera, looking frustrated, but doesn’t speak. Superimposed over her head is the text “just realized I only get to Yeet 4 Teets next week,” and a crying emoji. Rain appears to drip down over her while “Stan” by Eminem plays in the background.
That October 2020 TikTok by Sidhbh Gallagher, MD, a Miami-based plastic surgeon known as @gendersurgeon, had almost 10,000 likes and was tagged #topsurgery, #masculoplasty, #ftm, and #transman, among other hashtags.
“What health check do I have to get in preparation for teetus deletus?” is the question in another Dr. Gallagher TikTok. Dr. Gallagher is a prolific user of social media with over 268K TikTok followers and over 44K Instagram followers. Another Dr. Gallagher TikTok account, @thevagicianmd, has some 7K followers.
Another cosmetic surgeon, Tony Mangubat, MD, known as @Tikdoctony to his more than 200K followers, uses similar hashtags – like #teetusdeleetus – in his TikToks.
Clearly not medical terms, hashtags like #yeettheteet and #teetusdeletus are often used by the transgender community. The posts by Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Mangubat are part of an ever-growing wave of social media activity by medical professionals.
Plastic surgeons have never been shy about advertising their work – and many have taken to social media to do so, including showing before and after photos. A 2020 study published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery found that the majority of such surgeons, especially those in private practice, use social media.
especially to a younger-skewing audience.
Because of the limits on pornography and nudity of social media platforms, most social media posts by gender surgeons are about female-to-male (FTM) mastectomies, the fastest-growing transgender procedure.
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) started separately tracking gender-affirmation procedures in 2015. That year, members reported doing 1,360 FTM procedures.
In 2020, the ASPS further separated procedures into additional categories. That year – when many surgeries were postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic – FTM mastectomies grew by 15%, with 8,548 procedures performed, a far greater number than for any other transgender surgery, and a sixfold increase in the number of procedures done in 2015.
‘Gimmicky,’ but building community
Surgeons interviewed for this article said they use social media primarily to connect with patients and to educate in a light-hearted way.
While Dr. Gallagher acknowledges that using #teetusdeletus is “kind of gimmicky,” she said she doesn’t view it as unprofessional because she is “using the words of the community I serve.” Many of her patients have seen a medical professional “who just didn’t understand what it is to have gender dysphoria, didn’t understand what it is to be trans, so going from that experience to somebody who uses the same language as the community uses can be quite a comfortable experience,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Mangubat, a Seattle-area plastic surgeon who has been doing mastectomies for trans male patients since 1988, said he tailors his TikToks to that group. He likes TikTok – which he started using in early 2021 – because it has rules against bullying, swearing, and pornography, he told this news organization.
“It’s really not ... advertising ... it’s a community-building platform,” said Dr. Mangubat. “If you build community, people will trust you, and if you provide good accurate information, then people will be safer,” he said.
But, “I’m not telling them to come to me,” he stressed.
He always appears in scrubs and doesn’t do music, doesn’t dance, and doesn’t post before and after photos, but he still gets thousands – or sometimes hundreds of thousands – of likes.
His mission, he said, is to answer the community’s questions. “We’re reaching patients that have had their top surgery, that are going to have their top surgery, that are looking for how to get top surgery, that are just starting on testosterone, that haven’t started on testosterone – it’s the whole spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Mangubat.
Risks downplayed?
Other surgeons have expressed concern about ethical boundaries and the tendency of social media posts to downplay risks of what are life-changing procedures.
A 2020 study of YouTube videos on top surgery, for instance, concluded that “there were no unbiased videos by board-certified plastic surgeons explaining the risks, benefits, treatment options, and alternatives to surgery.”
Alison Clayton, MBBS, an Australian psychiatrist, said that social media posts can create false expectations because they emphasize style over substance, omit risks, and can create an unwarranted sense of trust in the doctor that can spill over into the physician-patient relationship.
Dr. Clayton also believes that “the gender-affirming surgical procedures being offered to these youth have a scant empirical evidence base for benefits to psychological health and well-being.”
It is known that a number of those who transition, using either opposite sex hormones and/or surgical procedures, later have regret and “detransition,” but statistics are lacking. It is also a controversial area, with many detransitioners saying they didn’t get appropriate care and weren’t properly assessed before being given hormones or heading to surgery.
Most of the gender surgeons interviewed for this article said they see almost “zero” regret if proper mental health evaluations are performed before surgery, and they added, the procedures can relieve dysphoria.
Nevertheless, posts should not be “all fun and games,” said Josef Hadeed, MD, chair of the ASPS Patient Safety Committee and Public Education Committee and a member of its Social Media Subcommittee.
“When someone makes a decision to undergo a surgical procedure, they should be very aware there are some risks and potentially serious risks involved,” he told this news organization.
The ASPS “wants members to use social media in a judicious manner” in a way that educates the public and encourages patients to learn about a procedure and to consult with board-certified plastic surgeons, said Dr. Hadeed.
The Beverly Hills, Calif.–based surgeon does gender-affirmation procedures himself and uses Instagram, on which he has 53.4K followers, to educate patients and highlight his work using before and after photos.
“I like to think I do it in a very tasteful way,” Dr. Hadeed said. “It’s not in a way that’s sort of suggestive to patients, including minors, that this is something they need to get done, because if they are thinking about getting it done there is a lengthy process that they have to go through before they even set foot in our office.”
And he said “it may be inappropriate” to use certain hashtags or terminology, “even if it does ‘speak’ to the patients. Professionally, plastic surgeons should maintain a higher standard and maintain that even with their social media.”
Marci Bowers, MD, a gynecologic surgeon who performs gender-affirming procedures, and who is transgender herself, agreed.
“Some of the posts out there seem sensational, distasteful, and risk compromising patient confidentiality,” Dr. Bowers said in an interview.
“Much of this seemed to cross the line of good taste and appropriateness,” added Dr. Bowers, who is the incoming president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). “Creating an idealized video without addressing risk is inappropriate and misleading,” she stressed.
“These surgeons would perhaps better serve their clients by focusing on and improving their clinical care,” she added.
Dr. Bowers said that although WPATH has not addressed social media use in the past, its ethics committee will be taking on the topic this year.
Social media posts about gender-affirming procedures “don’t usually talk about the barriers, they don’t talk about bad outcomes, they tend to just focus on success stories,” said Gwendolyn P. Quinn, MD, a bioethicist, and Livia S. Wan, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
But she also sees some positives. The posts can help normalize gender-affirming surgery, and post-procedure photos might “help people realize that they can’t just have everything exactly the way they want it to be,” said Dr. Quinn.
Does social media influence or educate?
Studies have documented the power of social media to influence desire and decisionmaking, especially when it comes to cosmetic surgery.
“The use of social media creates a vague area between patient confidentiality and entertainment,” writes Nisha Gupta and colleagues of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine in a review published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal.
While social media use is on the rise by plastic surgeons and has the potential to educate, it has also “compromised the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship,” they add.
Surgeons can use tools to place themselves higher in searches, and patients might assume that those who have hundreds of thousands of followers “are the most qualified or trusted, although this is not always the case,” they note.
Markus Rach, PhD, a researcher with the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, analyzed the impact of TikTok’s plastic surgery content on how adolescents perceived themselves and how it influenced their decision to have a procedure.
Most TikTok users are under age 24, and #plasticsurgery has a huge viewership with some 3.8 billion views at the time of publication, said Dr. Rach. He found that influencers tended to make adolescents feel bad and want surgery but that plastic surgeons had a moderating effect on both negative feelings and the intent to get surgery.
Dr. Bowers said that, despite her concerns, she does not “believe social media influences like TikTok and Facebook create artificial demand.”
However, Dr. Mangubat said social media can make plastic surgery seem enticing. “It can happen, and it does happen,” he said, but he added that’s true for any cosmetic procedure, not just gender-affirming surgery.
The pitfall with social media is that “patients are being sold a vision of themselves that may or may not be possible,” he observed.
Dr. Quinn worries less about people being talked into a procedure and more about those who don’t want surgery.
“There are people who identify as transgender but do not feel the need to change any parts of their body,” she said. “And that should be okay.”
Concerns about minors
New guidance from WPATH, their Standards of Care (SOC) 8 – the first update in 10 years – are due to be published this month. As reported by this news organization, and as stated in the draft of the SOC 8 published for comment in December 2021, the organization has recommended lowering the age for “top” surgery from 18 to 15 years.
Dr. Clayton has concerns about young people with gender dysphoria, who she says are “often vulnerable youth, many of whom have comorbid psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders.”
“This may contribute to a greater vulnerability of this population to undue influence,” added Dr. Clayton.
Sean Devitt, MD, and Jeffrey M. Kenkel, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, expressed concern that social media posts by plastic surgeons could be especially dangerous for young people.
“Given that the prefrontal cortex, which is largely responsible for impulse control, is not fully developed until the age of 25, is it ethical to allow younger patients to make life-lasting decisions under the guise of education?” they ask in a commentary on the review by Ms. Gupta and colleagues about plastic surgeons’ use of social media. The review did not focus on gender-affirmation procedures.
Many surgeons – but not all – steer clear of genital (“bottom”) surgeries in minors. However, bilateral mastectomies are being performed in those as young as age 13 based on surgeons’ risk-benefit calculus for the patient.
A study, published in May in the Annals of Plastic Surgery, showed there was a 13-fold increase in the number of bilateral mastectomies performed on under-18s between January 2013 and the end of July 2020. Of the 209 minors (age 12-17) who had the surgery, two (0.95%) expressed regret by the time of follow-up, at 3 and 7 years post-operatively, but neither had reversal surgery.
A small 2018 study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, among trans males who had top surgery found high rates of satisfaction, though one of the 68 patients reported experiencing regret “sometimes.” The mean age of patients in the surgical group was 19 years and the youngest patient was 14.
“Most of us who practice heavily in this field will make exceptions, not for genital surgery but typically for top surgery,” said Dr. Gallagher, who added that she operates on one minor [under 18] a month, while doing some 400-500 gender-affirmative surgeries a year. For some patients, “doing nothing isn’t necessarily a no-harm option,” said Dr. Gallagher.
“Arbitrarily picking the age of 18 and sentencing that patient to another year of dysphoria” might not be the best risk-benefit calculus, she said.
Dr. Mangubat agrees, especially if, for example, a trans man develops double D breasts by age 14. “You’ve sentenced them to 4 years of misery” before they can get insurance coverage, he said. His youngest top surgery patient was age 15. He said the person’s family, mental health professional, and primary care physician were all in favor of the procedure.
Dr. Mangubat also noted that some insurers, such as Kaiser Permanente, now cover bilateral mastectomy starting at age 16.
Dr. Quinn, the bioethicist, said not every minor or young adult is equipped to make the best long-term decisions.
She works with younger patients who have cancer, for example, and said her suggestions that they consider fertility preservation are often met with protestations “that they will never have children.”
The same issue arises with transgender patients. They may not want to think about having children or issues such as breast feeding while in their teens or early 20s. “But you know from your experience that they may feel differently in 10 years, but they’re just not in the mind frame to think about it,” said Dr. Quinn.
Some young people may accurately never want children, said Dr. Quinn, “but there is a lack of maturity shown when a person just shuts down a conversation and won’t even listen to infertility threats and potential preservation options.”
Concerns about regret?
Dr. Gallagher said she follows the WPATH standards, which require mental health evaluations, and as a result, “the risk of regret is incredibly low.”
However, one of Dr. Gallagher’s patients who detransitioned, Grace, who goes by @HormoneHangover on social media, said she has taken umbrage at some of the Miami surgeon’s TikToks, including one, “Why might some patients feel sad after surgery ... despite wanting it for so long??”
“This is actually not uncommon with ANY kind of surgery, but it’s temporary!” said the TikTok text. Dr. Gallagher is wearing a red dress and heels and flips her hair while the text scrolls above her.
But to Grace, the TikTok “really bothered me, because sometimes there is regret, and I think that sort of advertising paints a falsely rosy picture,” she said in an interview.
And it is emblematic of what she feels was Dr. Gallagher’s “breezy” approach to explaining the procedure to her. “The surgery itself was a shocking experience for me,” she said. “The physical experience was very jarring. It was very disturbing in a way I hadn’t anticipated or understood in advance,” said Grace.
Dr. Mangubat, who does 100 bilateral mastectomies in trans patients a year, said he goes to great lengths to ensure his patients are good candidates. Everyone – even those who self-pay – must have counseling, and if the individual seems to be considering the surgery because it’s “trendy,” he steers clear.
“If they’re not serious about it, I don’t want to operate on them,” said Dr. Mangubat. “There have been maybe two patients who have come back” to detransition, he said.
Dr. Hadeed also said he has not seen regret. He attributes this to his vetting process, which includes investigating the background of the mental health professionals who write support letters.
“We’ve turned away a lot of patients from our office either because of inadequate letters or because the person writing the letter just doesn’t really have any proper credentials,” he said.
Is social media use by plastic surgeons the new normal?
With so many plastic surgeons – including those who perform transgender procedures – using social media, it may increasingly be just part of doing business.
“Undoubtedly gender surgery teams will have a greater presence on social media in the future,” write Alireza Hamidian Jahromi, MD, and a colleague of the plastic surgery department at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, in a letter published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Kyle R. Latack, MD, and colleagues at the University of Southern California and the University of Michigan, have studied the use of social media by the transgender community and write that they believe “there should be an increased effort to develop high-quality and unbiased resources for patient education that can be made [available] on social media.”
Dr. Gallagher said TikTok helped her erase fear. “A bilateral mastectomy is a scary surgery for an 18-year-old or a 20-year-old,” she said, “but they have to do it for their well-being.”
“That is a criticism I’ve heard – that I seek to minimize it or that I’m flippant about it,” said Dr. Gallagher.
For “top surgery the risk profile is pretty low,” she said, “so what I try to do is educate people that it’s maybe not as scary a procedure as they think.”
Dr. Mangubat, however, is concerned about some of what he sees, especially the explosion of surgeons offering gender-affirming procedures. “Now everybody wants a piece of it,” he said.
“Let’s face it, it’s money now. You get paid for doing this surgery. Hospitals get paid a lot of money for their operating rooms for doing the surgery,” said Dr. Mangubat. “There are some surgeons who believe the transgender community is just another market.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer may increase risk of type 2 diabetes
most notably pancreatic malignancies.
“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.
“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer
Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.
Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis.
They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).
The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.
Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.
The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.
In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.
“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes
Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.
“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.
Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.
Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.
Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.
Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
most notably pancreatic malignancies.
“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.
“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer
Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.
Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis.
They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).
The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.
Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.
The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.
In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.
“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes
Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.
“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.
Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.
Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.
Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.
Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
most notably pancreatic malignancies.
“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.
“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer
Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.
Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis.
They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).
The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.
Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.
The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.
In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.
“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes
Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.
“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.
Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.
Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.
Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.
Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETES CARE
Roe v. Wade overturned, ending 50 years of abortion protections
According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.
Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.
The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.
The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2.
In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.
The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
Trigger laws and bans
When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.
University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.
The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.
Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.
“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”
In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.
Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.
On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.
Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Some states protecting rights
At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.
B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”
But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
Medication abortions, travel next battle
Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.
Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.
Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.
Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.
George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”
He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”
Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.
Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.
The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.
The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2.
In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.
The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
Trigger laws and bans
When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.
University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.
The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.
Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.
“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”
In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.
Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.
On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.
Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Some states protecting rights
At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.
B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”
But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
Medication abortions, travel next battle
Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.
Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.
Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.
Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.
George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”
He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”
Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.
Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.
The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.
The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2.
In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.
The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
Trigger laws and bans
When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.
University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.
The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.
Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.
“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”
In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.
Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.
On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.
Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Some states protecting rights
At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.
B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”
But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
Medication abortions, travel next battle
Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.
Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.
Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.
Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.
George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”
He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”
Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ready to make a difference, dermatologist takes the helm as AMA president
Jack S. Resneck Jr., MD, is not usually the loudest voice in the room, but when he speaks, his words carry a heft and an appeal that is straightforward and undeniable.
That was on full display as.
He did not mince words when it came to describing the current landscape. “I doubt you imagined a divided country such as this, where physicians and public health officials often face antiscience aggression and threats of violence simply for doing our jobs,” he said. “You probably didn’t plan on insurers questioning every prescription and every procedure you asked for. Or government criminalizing routine and vital health care, enshrining discrimination against our LGBTQ patients or attacking a woman’s right to control health care decisions that should only be between her and her doctor,” said Dr. Resneck.
But, he added, all was not lost. “While it would be easy to get overwhelmed by despair as I begin this new role, I’ve never been prouder of my physician colleagues,” he said.
Dr. Resneck is the first dermatologist to lead the 175-year-old organization since 1925. Colleagues in the field speak of pride in having one of their own at the top, and they are even more complimentary about his depth of health policy knowledge, his communications skills, and his ability to find common ground.
“He loves looking at both sides,” said Marta J. Van Beek, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “That’s how he builds consensus,” said Dr. Van Beek, who has known Dr. Resneck for more than 20 years, since they were chief dermatology residents – she at Iowa and he at UCSF.
Dr. Van Beek and Dr. Resneck have a deep interest in health policy and have long worked side by side on committees at both the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and the AMA. She looks back to the lead-up period before the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act as one of Dr. Resneck’s shining moments. “Those were contentious times in medicine,” Dr. Van Beek told this news organization. Dr. Resneck, as chair of the AAD’s Council on Government Affairs and Health Policy from 2008 to 2012, rallied the board to agree on a set of health care reform principles, she noted.
Dr. Resneck is “really very unifying,” agreed Bruce A. Brod, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Brod has worked with Dr. Resneck for 2 decades on various committees at the AAD. They’ve also known each other through the AMA House of Delegates.
Now Dr. Brod is following in Dr. Resneck’s footsteps as chair of the AAD’s Council on Government Affairs and Health Policy. “Big shoes to fill there,” said Dr. Brod. He said he’s been inspired by Dr. Resneck’s always-positive approach, punctuated by his ever-constant belief that “there’s a lot more common ground than meets the eye here.”
“I really think he’s the perfect leader at this time,” he said.
Outgoing AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, said that Dr. Resneck’s long experience as a teacher and a mentor, and what he describes as a “good, active listening talent,” have been integral to his success as a leader. He expects those qualities to make Dr. Resneck an effective advocate for all of medicine. “He identifies the problem, he identifies the gap, and then he establishes a workable, executable plan to close that gap,” Dr. Harmon told this news organization, adding that he’s seen this at work in AMA board meetings.
“He was a good teacher for me,” said Dr. Harmon, who had known Dr. Resneck through the House of Delegates and various AMA councils for at least a decade before they both joined the AMA board. “He can be such a mentor to all age groups, including senior physicians like myself,” said Dr. Harmon.
Dr. Resneck is excited, but also measured. “This has been a tumultuous couple of years in the country with the pandemic and with the fractured politics,” he said in an interview. Thinking about taking on the AMA presidency, he said, “I’ve had some moments of trepidation. I wanted to be sure that I was going to be able to make a difference.”
Long interest in health policy
Growing up in Shreveport, La., as the son of a dermatologist, Dr. Resneck said, “at first, I swore I was going to do something other than medicine.” It was not out of rebellion. He got along fine with his father. He wanted to pursue his own journey.
Dr. Resneck began his long love affair with health policy at Brown University, graduating magna cum laude with honors in public policy. A 1991 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services internship between his junior and senior years helped inform his honors thesis on health care financing policy.
Ultimately, Dr. Resneck did not stray far from his father’s career path. While still at Brown, he decided to go to medical school, entering UCSF in the fall of 1993. “At the end of the day, there was this undeniable influence that he loved his job,” Dr. Resneck said in the interview. His father was energized by the work and helping patients. “If burnout was in his vocabulary, I never heard it,” said Dr. Resneck.
Initially, he did a 1-year internal medicine residency at UCSF, but then switched to dermatology and became chief resident in 2000.
He was quickly pegged as a leader and an inspirational speaker. The AAD gave him its Young Physician Leadership Development Award in 2001, and the AMA gave Dr. Resneck its Excellence in Medicine National Award for Young Physician Leadership in 2004. He began giving talks at national meetings in 2002 and has been busy ever since, addressing the AMA, the AAD, state medical and dermatology societies, subspecialty groups such as the American College of Mohs Surgery and the Association of Professors of Dermatology, and other organizations such as the American Telemedicine Association.
He’s a sought-after speaker in part because of his ability to simply communicate health policy, said Dr. Brod. “He can connect the real-world issues really well to the policy needs and communicate it very well, and come in at just the right level,” he said.
Dr. Resneck has been immersed in policy and practice issues since the start of his career, serving on AAD and AMA committees addressing quality measures, data collection, access to care, workforce issues, and telemedicine. He started writing about dermatology workforce challenges in 2001 and has revisited that topic with regularity.
He has published often on the difficulties of patient access, looking at wait times for appointments, among other issues. In 2018, he expressed concern in a commentary in JAMA Dermatology that private equity purchases of dermatology practices might lead to an improper focus on profits over patients and that it could reduce the diversity of practice models.
At heart, Dr. Resneck is an institutionalist, someone who believes that the “collaborative, collective voice can make change,” said Dr. Brod. Dr. Resneck said as much in his inaugural speech. “I believe those who show up can use levers of power to confront our system’s flaws,” he said. “This is the nerdy policy part of my life, which my friends will force me to admit is most of my life,” said Dr. Resneck.
Prior authorization, telemedicine, equity
Beneath the reserved exterior lies an intense yearning to act on his passions, both at work and at play.
Dr. Resneck notes almost in passing that he likes to ski when he’s not practicing medicine or serving on a committee. Dr. Van Beek – whose family has vacationed with Dr. Resneck, his wife, Ellen Hufbauer, MD, a family medicine physician in Concord, Calif., and their two teenaged children Zachary and Amelia – said he’s “a very good skier.”
She noted that he and his children share the same enthusiasm for researching every aspect of wherever they travel, including the best places to eat. “He embraces work and life with an incredible amount of intellectual curiosity,” Dr. Van Beek said.
That curiosity – and the passion to make a difference – has driven his deep dives into what he sees as the corrosive practice of prior authorization and the promise of telemedicine, which he has explained and supported in testimony on Capitol Hill.
Dr. Brod said that Dr. Resneck was among those who helped convince the federal government to expand coverage for telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. “He brought together his patient experience in dermatology and his policy experience,” and was able to deftly explain how it could increase access during the shutdown, said Dr. Brod.
Prior authorization gets him fired up. “We’ve reached a point where there’s almost not anything I will write a prescription for that doesn’t oftentimes require all of these hoops that we have to jump through,” he told this news organization. Prescriptions for generic topical cortisones that have been around for 50 years “now all of the sudden require a week of arguing,” said Dr. Resneck. In the meantime, patients aren’t getting treatment, he said.
Dr. Resneck’s passion for health equity is borne in part out of the racism witnessed by him and his family, including an uncle who started an antisegregationist newspaper and was kicked out of medical school for his views in the 1950s. Dr. Resneck said he had a rudimentary understanding of racism as a youngster. But he told the AMA delegates, “I knew enough at age 16 to write an op-ed in our city’s newspaper about the need to remove Confederate monuments from our courthouse lawn.” Added Dr. Resneck, “You can imagine how that went over in 1987.”
The pandemic shined a bright light on inequities and heightened awareness of “the institutionalized systems that have perpetuated racism and gender discrimination in medicine for as far back as we want to look,” Dr. Resneck said during his inaugural speech. Pointedly, he told his colleagues that “the AMA has not always been on the right side of history,” adding, “Each of us must do our part to eliminate health inequities by engaging in antiracist and antisexist work.”
That kind of talk is signature Resneck, said Dr. Brod. “He’s not afraid to exhibit very brave leadership,” especially “when there are issues that jeopardize the needs of patient access or patient safety,” he said.
“He’ll be a tremendous AMA president,” said Dr. Van Beek. “He’s present, he’s devoted, and he’s typically the expert in the room.”
Dr. Harmon said that Dr. Resneck is “cut from the same cloth that I am. He believes that if you get an opportunity to make things better, you take it.”
His advice to Dr. Resneck: “Rarely turn an opportunity down.” Dr. Harmon has little doubt that Dr. Resneck is up to the job but said, “I’m going to encourage him to keep that energy and enthusiasm up.”
Dr. Resneck told physician colleagues not to worry: “I will keep relentlessly showing up.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Jack S. Resneck Jr., MD, is not usually the loudest voice in the room, but when he speaks, his words carry a heft and an appeal that is straightforward and undeniable.
That was on full display as.
He did not mince words when it came to describing the current landscape. “I doubt you imagined a divided country such as this, where physicians and public health officials often face antiscience aggression and threats of violence simply for doing our jobs,” he said. “You probably didn’t plan on insurers questioning every prescription and every procedure you asked for. Or government criminalizing routine and vital health care, enshrining discrimination against our LGBTQ patients or attacking a woman’s right to control health care decisions that should only be between her and her doctor,” said Dr. Resneck.
But, he added, all was not lost. “While it would be easy to get overwhelmed by despair as I begin this new role, I’ve never been prouder of my physician colleagues,” he said.
Dr. Resneck is the first dermatologist to lead the 175-year-old organization since 1925. Colleagues in the field speak of pride in having one of their own at the top, and they are even more complimentary about his depth of health policy knowledge, his communications skills, and his ability to find common ground.
“He loves looking at both sides,” said Marta J. Van Beek, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “That’s how he builds consensus,” said Dr. Van Beek, who has known Dr. Resneck for more than 20 years, since they were chief dermatology residents – she at Iowa and he at UCSF.
Dr. Van Beek and Dr. Resneck have a deep interest in health policy and have long worked side by side on committees at both the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and the AMA. She looks back to the lead-up period before the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act as one of Dr. Resneck’s shining moments. “Those were contentious times in medicine,” Dr. Van Beek told this news organization. Dr. Resneck, as chair of the AAD’s Council on Government Affairs and Health Policy from 2008 to 2012, rallied the board to agree on a set of health care reform principles, she noted.
Dr. Resneck is “really very unifying,” agreed Bruce A. Brod, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Brod has worked with Dr. Resneck for 2 decades on various committees at the AAD. They’ve also known each other through the AMA House of Delegates.
Now Dr. Brod is following in Dr. Resneck’s footsteps as chair of the AAD’s Council on Government Affairs and Health Policy. “Big shoes to fill there,” said Dr. Brod. He said he’s been inspired by Dr. Resneck’s always-positive approach, punctuated by his ever-constant belief that “there’s a lot more common ground than meets the eye here.”
“I really think he’s the perfect leader at this time,” he said.
Outgoing AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, said that Dr. Resneck’s long experience as a teacher and a mentor, and what he describes as a “good, active listening talent,” have been integral to his success as a leader. He expects those qualities to make Dr. Resneck an effective advocate for all of medicine. “He identifies the problem, he identifies the gap, and then he establishes a workable, executable plan to close that gap,” Dr. Harmon told this news organization, adding that he’s seen this at work in AMA board meetings.
“He was a good teacher for me,” said Dr. Harmon, who had known Dr. Resneck through the House of Delegates and various AMA councils for at least a decade before they both joined the AMA board. “He can be such a mentor to all age groups, including senior physicians like myself,” said Dr. Harmon.
Dr. Resneck is excited, but also measured. “This has been a tumultuous couple of years in the country with the pandemic and with the fractured politics,” he said in an interview. Thinking about taking on the AMA presidency, he said, “I’ve had some moments of trepidation. I wanted to be sure that I was going to be able to make a difference.”
Long interest in health policy
Growing up in Shreveport, La., as the son of a dermatologist, Dr. Resneck said, “at first, I swore I was going to do something other than medicine.” It was not out of rebellion. He got along fine with his father. He wanted to pursue his own journey.
Dr. Resneck began his long love affair with health policy at Brown University, graduating magna cum laude with honors in public policy. A 1991 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services internship between his junior and senior years helped inform his honors thesis on health care financing policy.
Ultimately, Dr. Resneck did not stray far from his father’s career path. While still at Brown, he decided to go to medical school, entering UCSF in the fall of 1993. “At the end of the day, there was this undeniable influence that he loved his job,” Dr. Resneck said in the interview. His father was energized by the work and helping patients. “If burnout was in his vocabulary, I never heard it,” said Dr. Resneck.
Initially, he did a 1-year internal medicine residency at UCSF, but then switched to dermatology and became chief resident in 2000.
He was quickly pegged as a leader and an inspirational speaker. The AAD gave him its Young Physician Leadership Development Award in 2001, and the AMA gave Dr. Resneck its Excellence in Medicine National Award for Young Physician Leadership in 2004. He began giving talks at national meetings in 2002 and has been busy ever since, addressing the AMA, the AAD, state medical and dermatology societies, subspecialty groups such as the American College of Mohs Surgery and the Association of Professors of Dermatology, and other organizations such as the American Telemedicine Association.
He’s a sought-after speaker in part because of his ability to simply communicate health policy, said Dr. Brod. “He can connect the real-world issues really well to the policy needs and communicate it very well, and come in at just the right level,” he said.
Dr. Resneck has been immersed in policy and practice issues since the start of his career, serving on AAD and AMA committees addressing quality measures, data collection, access to care, workforce issues, and telemedicine. He started writing about dermatology workforce challenges in 2001 and has revisited that topic with regularity.
He has published often on the difficulties of patient access, looking at wait times for appointments, among other issues. In 2018, he expressed concern in a commentary in JAMA Dermatology that private equity purchases of dermatology practices might lead to an improper focus on profits over patients and that it could reduce the diversity of practice models.
At heart, Dr. Resneck is an institutionalist, someone who believes that the “collaborative, collective voice can make change,” said Dr. Brod. Dr. Resneck said as much in his inaugural speech. “I believe those who show up can use levers of power to confront our system’s flaws,” he said. “This is the nerdy policy part of my life, which my friends will force me to admit is most of my life,” said Dr. Resneck.
Prior authorization, telemedicine, equity
Beneath the reserved exterior lies an intense yearning to act on his passions, both at work and at play.
Dr. Resneck notes almost in passing that he likes to ski when he’s not practicing medicine or serving on a committee. Dr. Van Beek – whose family has vacationed with Dr. Resneck, his wife, Ellen Hufbauer, MD, a family medicine physician in Concord, Calif., and their two teenaged children Zachary and Amelia – said he’s “a very good skier.”
She noted that he and his children share the same enthusiasm for researching every aspect of wherever they travel, including the best places to eat. “He embraces work and life with an incredible amount of intellectual curiosity,” Dr. Van Beek said.
That curiosity – and the passion to make a difference – has driven his deep dives into what he sees as the corrosive practice of prior authorization and the promise of telemedicine, which he has explained and supported in testimony on Capitol Hill.
Dr. Brod said that Dr. Resneck was among those who helped convince the federal government to expand coverage for telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. “He brought together his patient experience in dermatology and his policy experience,” and was able to deftly explain how it could increase access during the shutdown, said Dr. Brod.
Prior authorization gets him fired up. “We’ve reached a point where there’s almost not anything I will write a prescription for that doesn’t oftentimes require all of these hoops that we have to jump through,” he told this news organization. Prescriptions for generic topical cortisones that have been around for 50 years “now all of the sudden require a week of arguing,” said Dr. Resneck. In the meantime, patients aren’t getting treatment, he said.
Dr. Resneck’s passion for health equity is borne in part out of the racism witnessed by him and his family, including an uncle who started an antisegregationist newspaper and was kicked out of medical school for his views in the 1950s. Dr. Resneck said he had a rudimentary understanding of racism as a youngster. But he told the AMA delegates, “I knew enough at age 16 to write an op-ed in our city’s newspaper about the need to remove Confederate monuments from our courthouse lawn.” Added Dr. Resneck, “You can imagine how that went over in 1987.”
The pandemic shined a bright light on inequities and heightened awareness of “the institutionalized systems that have perpetuated racism and gender discrimination in medicine for as far back as we want to look,” Dr. Resneck said during his inaugural speech. Pointedly, he told his colleagues that “the AMA has not always been on the right side of history,” adding, “Each of us must do our part to eliminate health inequities by engaging in antiracist and antisexist work.”
That kind of talk is signature Resneck, said Dr. Brod. “He’s not afraid to exhibit very brave leadership,” especially “when there are issues that jeopardize the needs of patient access or patient safety,” he said.
“He’ll be a tremendous AMA president,” said Dr. Van Beek. “He’s present, he’s devoted, and he’s typically the expert in the room.”
Dr. Harmon said that Dr. Resneck is “cut from the same cloth that I am. He believes that if you get an opportunity to make things better, you take it.”
His advice to Dr. Resneck: “Rarely turn an opportunity down.” Dr. Harmon has little doubt that Dr. Resneck is up to the job but said, “I’m going to encourage him to keep that energy and enthusiasm up.”
Dr. Resneck told physician colleagues not to worry: “I will keep relentlessly showing up.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Jack S. Resneck Jr., MD, is not usually the loudest voice in the room, but when he speaks, his words carry a heft and an appeal that is straightforward and undeniable.
That was on full display as.
He did not mince words when it came to describing the current landscape. “I doubt you imagined a divided country such as this, where physicians and public health officials often face antiscience aggression and threats of violence simply for doing our jobs,” he said. “You probably didn’t plan on insurers questioning every prescription and every procedure you asked for. Or government criminalizing routine and vital health care, enshrining discrimination against our LGBTQ patients or attacking a woman’s right to control health care decisions that should only be between her and her doctor,” said Dr. Resneck.
But, he added, all was not lost. “While it would be easy to get overwhelmed by despair as I begin this new role, I’ve never been prouder of my physician colleagues,” he said.
Dr. Resneck is the first dermatologist to lead the 175-year-old organization since 1925. Colleagues in the field speak of pride in having one of their own at the top, and they are even more complimentary about his depth of health policy knowledge, his communications skills, and his ability to find common ground.
“He loves looking at both sides,” said Marta J. Van Beek, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “That’s how he builds consensus,” said Dr. Van Beek, who has known Dr. Resneck for more than 20 years, since they were chief dermatology residents – she at Iowa and he at UCSF.
Dr. Van Beek and Dr. Resneck have a deep interest in health policy and have long worked side by side on committees at both the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and the AMA. She looks back to the lead-up period before the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act as one of Dr. Resneck’s shining moments. “Those were contentious times in medicine,” Dr. Van Beek told this news organization. Dr. Resneck, as chair of the AAD’s Council on Government Affairs and Health Policy from 2008 to 2012, rallied the board to agree on a set of health care reform principles, she noted.
Dr. Resneck is “really very unifying,” agreed Bruce A. Brod, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Brod has worked with Dr. Resneck for 2 decades on various committees at the AAD. They’ve also known each other through the AMA House of Delegates.
Now Dr. Brod is following in Dr. Resneck’s footsteps as chair of the AAD’s Council on Government Affairs and Health Policy. “Big shoes to fill there,” said Dr. Brod. He said he’s been inspired by Dr. Resneck’s always-positive approach, punctuated by his ever-constant belief that “there’s a lot more common ground than meets the eye here.”
“I really think he’s the perfect leader at this time,” he said.
Outgoing AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, said that Dr. Resneck’s long experience as a teacher and a mentor, and what he describes as a “good, active listening talent,” have been integral to his success as a leader. He expects those qualities to make Dr. Resneck an effective advocate for all of medicine. “He identifies the problem, he identifies the gap, and then he establishes a workable, executable plan to close that gap,” Dr. Harmon told this news organization, adding that he’s seen this at work in AMA board meetings.
“He was a good teacher for me,” said Dr. Harmon, who had known Dr. Resneck through the House of Delegates and various AMA councils for at least a decade before they both joined the AMA board. “He can be such a mentor to all age groups, including senior physicians like myself,” said Dr. Harmon.
Dr. Resneck is excited, but also measured. “This has been a tumultuous couple of years in the country with the pandemic and with the fractured politics,” he said in an interview. Thinking about taking on the AMA presidency, he said, “I’ve had some moments of trepidation. I wanted to be sure that I was going to be able to make a difference.”
Long interest in health policy
Growing up in Shreveport, La., as the son of a dermatologist, Dr. Resneck said, “at first, I swore I was going to do something other than medicine.” It was not out of rebellion. He got along fine with his father. He wanted to pursue his own journey.
Dr. Resneck began his long love affair with health policy at Brown University, graduating magna cum laude with honors in public policy. A 1991 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services internship between his junior and senior years helped inform his honors thesis on health care financing policy.
Ultimately, Dr. Resneck did not stray far from his father’s career path. While still at Brown, he decided to go to medical school, entering UCSF in the fall of 1993. “At the end of the day, there was this undeniable influence that he loved his job,” Dr. Resneck said in the interview. His father was energized by the work and helping patients. “If burnout was in his vocabulary, I never heard it,” said Dr. Resneck.
Initially, he did a 1-year internal medicine residency at UCSF, but then switched to dermatology and became chief resident in 2000.
He was quickly pegged as a leader and an inspirational speaker. The AAD gave him its Young Physician Leadership Development Award in 2001, and the AMA gave Dr. Resneck its Excellence in Medicine National Award for Young Physician Leadership in 2004. He began giving talks at national meetings in 2002 and has been busy ever since, addressing the AMA, the AAD, state medical and dermatology societies, subspecialty groups such as the American College of Mohs Surgery and the Association of Professors of Dermatology, and other organizations such as the American Telemedicine Association.
He’s a sought-after speaker in part because of his ability to simply communicate health policy, said Dr. Brod. “He can connect the real-world issues really well to the policy needs and communicate it very well, and come in at just the right level,” he said.
Dr. Resneck has been immersed in policy and practice issues since the start of his career, serving on AAD and AMA committees addressing quality measures, data collection, access to care, workforce issues, and telemedicine. He started writing about dermatology workforce challenges in 2001 and has revisited that topic with regularity.
He has published often on the difficulties of patient access, looking at wait times for appointments, among other issues. In 2018, he expressed concern in a commentary in JAMA Dermatology that private equity purchases of dermatology practices might lead to an improper focus on profits over patients and that it could reduce the diversity of practice models.
At heart, Dr. Resneck is an institutionalist, someone who believes that the “collaborative, collective voice can make change,” said Dr. Brod. Dr. Resneck said as much in his inaugural speech. “I believe those who show up can use levers of power to confront our system’s flaws,” he said. “This is the nerdy policy part of my life, which my friends will force me to admit is most of my life,” said Dr. Resneck.
Prior authorization, telemedicine, equity
Beneath the reserved exterior lies an intense yearning to act on his passions, both at work and at play.
Dr. Resneck notes almost in passing that he likes to ski when he’s not practicing medicine or serving on a committee. Dr. Van Beek – whose family has vacationed with Dr. Resneck, his wife, Ellen Hufbauer, MD, a family medicine physician in Concord, Calif., and their two teenaged children Zachary and Amelia – said he’s “a very good skier.”
She noted that he and his children share the same enthusiasm for researching every aspect of wherever they travel, including the best places to eat. “He embraces work and life with an incredible amount of intellectual curiosity,” Dr. Van Beek said.
That curiosity – and the passion to make a difference – has driven his deep dives into what he sees as the corrosive practice of prior authorization and the promise of telemedicine, which he has explained and supported in testimony on Capitol Hill.
Dr. Brod said that Dr. Resneck was among those who helped convince the federal government to expand coverage for telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. “He brought together his patient experience in dermatology and his policy experience,” and was able to deftly explain how it could increase access during the shutdown, said Dr. Brod.
Prior authorization gets him fired up. “We’ve reached a point where there’s almost not anything I will write a prescription for that doesn’t oftentimes require all of these hoops that we have to jump through,” he told this news organization. Prescriptions for generic topical cortisones that have been around for 50 years “now all of the sudden require a week of arguing,” said Dr. Resneck. In the meantime, patients aren’t getting treatment, he said.
Dr. Resneck’s passion for health equity is borne in part out of the racism witnessed by him and his family, including an uncle who started an antisegregationist newspaper and was kicked out of medical school for his views in the 1950s. Dr. Resneck said he had a rudimentary understanding of racism as a youngster. But he told the AMA delegates, “I knew enough at age 16 to write an op-ed in our city’s newspaper about the need to remove Confederate monuments from our courthouse lawn.” Added Dr. Resneck, “You can imagine how that went over in 1987.”
The pandemic shined a bright light on inequities and heightened awareness of “the institutionalized systems that have perpetuated racism and gender discrimination in medicine for as far back as we want to look,” Dr. Resneck said during his inaugural speech. Pointedly, he told his colleagues that “the AMA has not always been on the right side of history,” adding, “Each of us must do our part to eliminate health inequities by engaging in antiracist and antisexist work.”
That kind of talk is signature Resneck, said Dr. Brod. “He’s not afraid to exhibit very brave leadership,” especially “when there are issues that jeopardize the needs of patient access or patient safety,” he said.
“He’ll be a tremendous AMA president,” said Dr. Van Beek. “He’s present, he’s devoted, and he’s typically the expert in the room.”
Dr. Harmon said that Dr. Resneck is “cut from the same cloth that I am. He believes that if you get an opportunity to make things better, you take it.”
His advice to Dr. Resneck: “Rarely turn an opportunity down.” Dr. Harmon has little doubt that Dr. Resneck is up to the job but said, “I’m going to encourage him to keep that energy and enthusiasm up.”
Dr. Resneck told physician colleagues not to worry: “I will keep relentlessly showing up.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New law aims to meet crushing need for mental health care professionals
, say state leaders.
Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) signed the legislation, which took effect on June 10.
The law seeks to attract psychologists, social workers, and counselors who have left the workforce within the past 5 years by temporarily ending relicensing requirements, including the need for continuing education credit completion, passing new exams, and fee payments. It also eases the process for those practicing in other states to become licensed in Illinois.
State legislators said there is currently a crushing need for mental health providers, estimating that there are only 14 behavioral health care professionals for every 10,000 Illinois residents. The preamble to the law noted that there will be 8,353 unfilled mental health care jobs in Illinois by 2026.
“We need a mental health care workforce that is robust enough to get people help when they need it – not after months on a waiting list,” Governor Pritzker said in news release. “This legislation invests in mental health infrastructure – and that infrastructure is people,” he added.
Grant pathway
“Being told you have to wait weeks – or months – for care is extremely discouraging,” State Senator Laura Fine (D), a lead sponsor of the legislation, noted in the release.
“We need to support people struggling with mental and behavioral health issues, as well as address difficulties our mental health providers are facing trying to see as many patients as possible,” said Senator Fine.
Marvin Lindsey, CEO of the Community Behavioral Healthcare Association, added that the law would “accelerate the process for out-of-state professionals to obtain their Illinois licensure and [increase] the pipeline and diversity of the behavioral health workforce by implementing a funding mechanism that supports new or existing licensure training of interns.”
The law sets up a grant pathway for community mental health centers, which often serve as training sites. The grants would provide funds to establish or enhance training and supervision of interns and behavioral health providers-in-training seeking to become licensed clinical social workers, licensed clinical professional counselors, or licensed marriage and family therapists.
The money for those grants still has to be appropriated.
The law will also allow patient visits at Specialized Mental Health Rehabilitation Facilities conducted by either a psychiatrist or an advanced practice registered mental health or psychiatric nurse.
Finally, it would establish tax credits for employers who hire individuals in recovery from a substance use disorder or a behavioral disorder. Beginning in January 2023, employers will be eligible for up to $2,000 in credits per employee hired.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, say state leaders.
Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) signed the legislation, which took effect on June 10.
The law seeks to attract psychologists, social workers, and counselors who have left the workforce within the past 5 years by temporarily ending relicensing requirements, including the need for continuing education credit completion, passing new exams, and fee payments. It also eases the process for those practicing in other states to become licensed in Illinois.
State legislators said there is currently a crushing need for mental health providers, estimating that there are only 14 behavioral health care professionals for every 10,000 Illinois residents. The preamble to the law noted that there will be 8,353 unfilled mental health care jobs in Illinois by 2026.
“We need a mental health care workforce that is robust enough to get people help when they need it – not after months on a waiting list,” Governor Pritzker said in news release. “This legislation invests in mental health infrastructure – and that infrastructure is people,” he added.
Grant pathway
“Being told you have to wait weeks – or months – for care is extremely discouraging,” State Senator Laura Fine (D), a lead sponsor of the legislation, noted in the release.
“We need to support people struggling with mental and behavioral health issues, as well as address difficulties our mental health providers are facing trying to see as many patients as possible,” said Senator Fine.
Marvin Lindsey, CEO of the Community Behavioral Healthcare Association, added that the law would “accelerate the process for out-of-state professionals to obtain their Illinois licensure and [increase] the pipeline and diversity of the behavioral health workforce by implementing a funding mechanism that supports new or existing licensure training of interns.”
The law sets up a grant pathway for community mental health centers, which often serve as training sites. The grants would provide funds to establish or enhance training and supervision of interns and behavioral health providers-in-training seeking to become licensed clinical social workers, licensed clinical professional counselors, or licensed marriage and family therapists.
The money for those grants still has to be appropriated.
The law will also allow patient visits at Specialized Mental Health Rehabilitation Facilities conducted by either a psychiatrist or an advanced practice registered mental health or psychiatric nurse.
Finally, it would establish tax credits for employers who hire individuals in recovery from a substance use disorder or a behavioral disorder. Beginning in January 2023, employers will be eligible for up to $2,000 in credits per employee hired.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, say state leaders.
Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) signed the legislation, which took effect on June 10.
The law seeks to attract psychologists, social workers, and counselors who have left the workforce within the past 5 years by temporarily ending relicensing requirements, including the need for continuing education credit completion, passing new exams, and fee payments. It also eases the process for those practicing in other states to become licensed in Illinois.
State legislators said there is currently a crushing need for mental health providers, estimating that there are only 14 behavioral health care professionals for every 10,000 Illinois residents. The preamble to the law noted that there will be 8,353 unfilled mental health care jobs in Illinois by 2026.
“We need a mental health care workforce that is robust enough to get people help when they need it – not after months on a waiting list,” Governor Pritzker said in news release. “This legislation invests in mental health infrastructure – and that infrastructure is people,” he added.
Grant pathway
“Being told you have to wait weeks – or months – for care is extremely discouraging,” State Senator Laura Fine (D), a lead sponsor of the legislation, noted in the release.
“We need to support people struggling with mental and behavioral health issues, as well as address difficulties our mental health providers are facing trying to see as many patients as possible,” said Senator Fine.
Marvin Lindsey, CEO of the Community Behavioral Healthcare Association, added that the law would “accelerate the process for out-of-state professionals to obtain their Illinois licensure and [increase] the pipeline and diversity of the behavioral health workforce by implementing a funding mechanism that supports new or existing licensure training of interns.”
The law sets up a grant pathway for community mental health centers, which often serve as training sites. The grants would provide funds to establish or enhance training and supervision of interns and behavioral health providers-in-training seeking to become licensed clinical social workers, licensed clinical professional counselors, or licensed marriage and family therapists.
The money for those grants still has to be appropriated.
The law will also allow patient visits at Specialized Mental Health Rehabilitation Facilities conducted by either a psychiatrist or an advanced practice registered mental health or psychiatric nurse.
Finally, it would establish tax credits for employers who hire individuals in recovery from a substance use disorder or a behavioral disorder. Beginning in January 2023, employers will be eligible for up to $2,000 in credits per employee hired.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New studies show growing number of trans, nonbinary youth in U.S.
Two new studies point to an ever-increasing number of young people in the United States who identify as transgender and nonbinary, with the figures doubling among 18- to 24-year-olds in one institute’s research – from 0.66% of the population in 2016 to 1.3% (398,900) in 2022.
In addition, 1.4% (300,100) of 13- to 17-year-olds identify as trans or nonbinary, according to the report from that group, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.
Williams, which conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, did not contain data on 13- to 17-year-olds in its 2016 study, so the growth in that group over the past 5+ years is not as well documented.
Overall, some 1.6 million Americans older than age 13 now identify as transgender, reported the Williams researchers.
And in a new Pew Research Center survey, 2% of adults aged 18-29 identify as transgender and 3% identify as nonbinary, a far greater number than in other age cohorts.
These reports are likely underestimates. The Human Rights Campaign estimates that some 2 million Americans of all ages identify as transgender.
The Pew survey is weighted to be representative but still has limitations, said the organization. The Williams analysis, based on responses to two CDC surveys – the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) – is incomplete, say researchers, because not every state collects data on gender identity.
Transgender identities more predominant among youth
The Williams researchers report that 18.3% of those who identified as trans were 13- to 17-year-olds; that age group makes up 7.6% of the United States population 13 and older.
And despite not having firm figures from earlier reports, they comment: “Youth ages 13-17 comprise a larger share of the transgender-identified population than we previously estimated, currently comprising about 18% of the transgender-identified population in the United State, up from 10% previously.”
About one-quarter of those who identified as trans in the new 2022 report were aged 18-24; that age cohort accounts for 11% of Americans.
The number of older Americans who identify as trans are more proportionate to their representation in the population, according to Williams. Overall, about half of those who said they were trans were aged 25-64; that group accounts for 62% of the overall American population. Some 10% of trans-identified individuals were over age 65. About 20% of Americans are 65 or older, said the researchers.
The Pew research – based on the responses of 10,188 individuals surveyed in May – also found growing numbers of young people who identify as trans. “The share of U.S. adults who are transgender is particularly high among adults younger than 25,” reported Pew in a blog post.
In the 18- to 25-year-old group, 3.1% identified as a trans man or a trans woman, compared with just 0.5% of those ages 25-29.
That compares to 0.3% of those aged 30-49 and 0.2% of those older than 50.
Racial and state-by-state variation
Similar percentages of youth aged 13-17 of all races and ethnicities in the Williams study report they are transgender, ranging from 1% of those who are Asian, to 1.3% of White youth, 1.4% of Black youth, 1.8% of American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.8% of Latinx youth. The institute reported that 1.5% of biracial and multiracial youth identified as transgender.
The researchers said, however, that “transgender-identified youth and adults appear more likely to report being Latinx and less likely to report being White, as compared to the United States population.”
Transgender individuals live in every state, with the greatest percentage of both youth and adults in the Northeast and West, and lesser percentages in the Midwest and South, reported the Williams Institute.
Williams estimates as many as 3% of 13- to 17-year-olds in New York identify as trans, while just 0.6% of that age group in Wyoming is transgender. A total of 2%-2.5% of those aged 13-17 are transgender in Hawaii, New Mexico, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
Among the states with higher percentages of trans-identifying 18- to 24-year-olds: Arizona (1.9%), Arkansas (3.6%), Colorado (2%), Delaware (2.4%), Illinois (1.9%), Maryland (1.9%), North Carolina (2.5%), Oklahoma (2.5%), Massachusetts (2.3%), Rhode Island (2.1%), and Washington (2%).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two new studies point to an ever-increasing number of young people in the United States who identify as transgender and nonbinary, with the figures doubling among 18- to 24-year-olds in one institute’s research – from 0.66% of the population in 2016 to 1.3% (398,900) in 2022.
In addition, 1.4% (300,100) of 13- to 17-year-olds identify as trans or nonbinary, according to the report from that group, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.
Williams, which conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, did not contain data on 13- to 17-year-olds in its 2016 study, so the growth in that group over the past 5+ years is not as well documented.
Overall, some 1.6 million Americans older than age 13 now identify as transgender, reported the Williams researchers.
And in a new Pew Research Center survey, 2% of adults aged 18-29 identify as transgender and 3% identify as nonbinary, a far greater number than in other age cohorts.
These reports are likely underestimates. The Human Rights Campaign estimates that some 2 million Americans of all ages identify as transgender.
The Pew survey is weighted to be representative but still has limitations, said the organization. The Williams analysis, based on responses to two CDC surveys – the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) – is incomplete, say researchers, because not every state collects data on gender identity.
Transgender identities more predominant among youth
The Williams researchers report that 18.3% of those who identified as trans were 13- to 17-year-olds; that age group makes up 7.6% of the United States population 13 and older.
And despite not having firm figures from earlier reports, they comment: “Youth ages 13-17 comprise a larger share of the transgender-identified population than we previously estimated, currently comprising about 18% of the transgender-identified population in the United State, up from 10% previously.”
About one-quarter of those who identified as trans in the new 2022 report were aged 18-24; that age cohort accounts for 11% of Americans.
The number of older Americans who identify as trans are more proportionate to their representation in the population, according to Williams. Overall, about half of those who said they were trans were aged 25-64; that group accounts for 62% of the overall American population. Some 10% of trans-identified individuals were over age 65. About 20% of Americans are 65 or older, said the researchers.
The Pew research – based on the responses of 10,188 individuals surveyed in May – also found growing numbers of young people who identify as trans. “The share of U.S. adults who are transgender is particularly high among adults younger than 25,” reported Pew in a blog post.
In the 18- to 25-year-old group, 3.1% identified as a trans man or a trans woman, compared with just 0.5% of those ages 25-29.
That compares to 0.3% of those aged 30-49 and 0.2% of those older than 50.
Racial and state-by-state variation
Similar percentages of youth aged 13-17 of all races and ethnicities in the Williams study report they are transgender, ranging from 1% of those who are Asian, to 1.3% of White youth, 1.4% of Black youth, 1.8% of American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.8% of Latinx youth. The institute reported that 1.5% of biracial and multiracial youth identified as transgender.
The researchers said, however, that “transgender-identified youth and adults appear more likely to report being Latinx and less likely to report being White, as compared to the United States population.”
Transgender individuals live in every state, with the greatest percentage of both youth and adults in the Northeast and West, and lesser percentages in the Midwest and South, reported the Williams Institute.
Williams estimates as many as 3% of 13- to 17-year-olds in New York identify as trans, while just 0.6% of that age group in Wyoming is transgender. A total of 2%-2.5% of those aged 13-17 are transgender in Hawaii, New Mexico, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
Among the states with higher percentages of trans-identifying 18- to 24-year-olds: Arizona (1.9%), Arkansas (3.6%), Colorado (2%), Delaware (2.4%), Illinois (1.9%), Maryland (1.9%), North Carolina (2.5%), Oklahoma (2.5%), Massachusetts (2.3%), Rhode Island (2.1%), and Washington (2%).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two new studies point to an ever-increasing number of young people in the United States who identify as transgender and nonbinary, with the figures doubling among 18- to 24-year-olds in one institute’s research – from 0.66% of the population in 2016 to 1.3% (398,900) in 2022.
In addition, 1.4% (300,100) of 13- to 17-year-olds identify as trans or nonbinary, according to the report from that group, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.
Williams, which conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, did not contain data on 13- to 17-year-olds in its 2016 study, so the growth in that group over the past 5+ years is not as well documented.
Overall, some 1.6 million Americans older than age 13 now identify as transgender, reported the Williams researchers.
And in a new Pew Research Center survey, 2% of adults aged 18-29 identify as transgender and 3% identify as nonbinary, a far greater number than in other age cohorts.
These reports are likely underestimates. The Human Rights Campaign estimates that some 2 million Americans of all ages identify as transgender.
The Pew survey is weighted to be representative but still has limitations, said the organization. The Williams analysis, based on responses to two CDC surveys – the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) – is incomplete, say researchers, because not every state collects data on gender identity.
Transgender identities more predominant among youth
The Williams researchers report that 18.3% of those who identified as trans were 13- to 17-year-olds; that age group makes up 7.6% of the United States population 13 and older.
And despite not having firm figures from earlier reports, they comment: “Youth ages 13-17 comprise a larger share of the transgender-identified population than we previously estimated, currently comprising about 18% of the transgender-identified population in the United State, up from 10% previously.”
About one-quarter of those who identified as trans in the new 2022 report were aged 18-24; that age cohort accounts for 11% of Americans.
The number of older Americans who identify as trans are more proportionate to their representation in the population, according to Williams. Overall, about half of those who said they were trans were aged 25-64; that group accounts for 62% of the overall American population. Some 10% of trans-identified individuals were over age 65. About 20% of Americans are 65 or older, said the researchers.
The Pew research – based on the responses of 10,188 individuals surveyed in May – also found growing numbers of young people who identify as trans. “The share of U.S. adults who are transgender is particularly high among adults younger than 25,” reported Pew in a blog post.
In the 18- to 25-year-old group, 3.1% identified as a trans man or a trans woman, compared with just 0.5% of those ages 25-29.
That compares to 0.3% of those aged 30-49 and 0.2% of those older than 50.
Racial and state-by-state variation
Similar percentages of youth aged 13-17 of all races and ethnicities in the Williams study report they are transgender, ranging from 1% of those who are Asian, to 1.3% of White youth, 1.4% of Black youth, 1.8% of American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.8% of Latinx youth. The institute reported that 1.5% of biracial and multiracial youth identified as transgender.
The researchers said, however, that “transgender-identified youth and adults appear more likely to report being Latinx and less likely to report being White, as compared to the United States population.”
Transgender individuals live in every state, with the greatest percentage of both youth and adults in the Northeast and West, and lesser percentages in the Midwest and South, reported the Williams Institute.
Williams estimates as many as 3% of 13- to 17-year-olds in New York identify as trans, while just 0.6% of that age group in Wyoming is transgender. A total of 2%-2.5% of those aged 13-17 are transgender in Hawaii, New Mexico, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
Among the states with higher percentages of trans-identifying 18- to 24-year-olds: Arizona (1.9%), Arkansas (3.6%), Colorado (2%), Delaware (2.4%), Illinois (1.9%), Maryland (1.9%), North Carolina (2.5%), Oklahoma (2.5%), Massachusetts (2.3%), Rhode Island (2.1%), and Washington (2%).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA to decide by June on future of COVID vaccines
April 6.
But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.
The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.
“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”
The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.
The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”
The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.
“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.
Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.
Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.
“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
Not enough information to make broader plan
The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.
But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.
“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.
In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.
But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.
It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.
Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”
More like flu vaccine?
The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.
The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.
COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”
“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
April 6.
But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.
The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.
“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”
The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.
The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”
The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.
“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.
Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.
Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.
“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
Not enough information to make broader plan
The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.
But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.
“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.
In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.
But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.
It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.
Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”
More like flu vaccine?
The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.
The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.
COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”
“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
April 6.
But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.
The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.
“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”
The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.
The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”
The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.
“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.
Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.
Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.
“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
Not enough information to make broader plan
The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.
But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.
“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.
In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.
But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.
It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.
Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”
More like flu vaccine?
The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.
The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.
COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”
“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.