Clinical Endocrinology News

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

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

GnRH agonists and puberty

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

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

Concerns over bone health

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

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

Lingering questions

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

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

GnRH agonists and puberty

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

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

Concerns over bone health

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

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

Lingering questions

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

“They Paused Puberty but Is There a Cost?”

“Bone Health: Puberty Blockers Not Fully Reversible.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

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

GnRH agonists and puberty

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

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

Concerns over bone health

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

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

Lingering questions

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A jobs program

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

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

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

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

The MBAization of medicine

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

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

My goodness! Well done.

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

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

Take it all over?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A jobs program

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

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

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

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

The MBAization of medicine

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

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

My goodness! Well done.

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

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

Take it all over?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A jobs program

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

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

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

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

The MBAization of medicine

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

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

My goodness! Well done.

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

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

Take it all over?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
 

CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.

They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Look beyond traditional risk factors

“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release. 

“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.

Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.

Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.

The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.

“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.

“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
 

No one-size-fits-all approach

The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.

It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.

“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.

“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.

Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.

They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
 

CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.

They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Look beyond traditional risk factors

“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release. 

“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.

Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.

Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.

The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.

“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.

“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
 

No one-size-fits-all approach

The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.

It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.

“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.

“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.

Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.

They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
 

CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.

They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Look beyond traditional risk factors

“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release. 

“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.

Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.

Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.

The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.

“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.

“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
 

No one-size-fits-all approach

The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.

It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.

“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.

“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.

Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.

They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

A new compilation of nearly all research to date on the health impacts of sugar offers dozens of reasons to cut back.

Researchers from China and the United States rounded up 8,601 scientific studies on sugar and combined them to evaluate its impact on 83 health outcomes. The studies accounted for decades of research on the topic, stretching back to the beginning of the largest electronic databases for scientific papers.

The result is a list that cites the world’s most common health problems like heart disease, diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, heart attack, high cholesterol, cancer, and depression. The findings were published in the BMJ. Researchers looked at studies that evaluated the impacts of consuming free sugars, which means any food that contains processed or naturally occurring sugars like table sugar, honey, or maple syrup. Sugar found in whole fruits and vegetables and in milk is not free sugar.

U.S. dietary guidelines recommend getting no more than 10% of daily calories from added sugars. For a typical 2,000-calorie-per-day diet, that equals no more than 200 calories, or about 12 teaspoons. The CDC reports that the average person consumes 17 teaspoons per day, with the largest sources being sugar-sweetened beverages, desserts, and snacks. (For context: one 12-ounce can of soda contains the equivalent of 9 teaspoons of sugar, according to beverage maker Coca-Cola.)

The new analysis also found links between sugary beverage consumption and other diet and lifestyle characteristics that may contribute to health problems.

“People who consumed sugar-sweetened beverages more frequently were likely to ingest more total and saturated fat, carbohydrate, and sodium, and less fruit, fiber, dairy products, and whole grain foods,” the authors wrote. “This dietary pattern was also associated with more frequent smoking and drinking, lower physical activity levels, and more time spent watching television. Therefore, the role of these confounding factors should be taken into consideration when explaining the association between sugar consumption and burden of disease.”

Recommendations for limiting sugar consumption are in place worldwide, the authors noted. They concluded that more needs to be done given the known health dangers of sugar.

“To change sugar consumption patterns, especially for children and adolescents, a combination of widespread public health education and policies worldwide is urgently needed,” they said.

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

A new compilation of nearly all research to date on the health impacts of sugar offers dozens of reasons to cut back.

Researchers from China and the United States rounded up 8,601 scientific studies on sugar and combined them to evaluate its impact on 83 health outcomes. The studies accounted for decades of research on the topic, stretching back to the beginning of the largest electronic databases for scientific papers.

The result is a list that cites the world’s most common health problems like heart disease, diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, heart attack, high cholesterol, cancer, and depression. The findings were published in the BMJ. Researchers looked at studies that evaluated the impacts of consuming free sugars, which means any food that contains processed or naturally occurring sugars like table sugar, honey, or maple syrup. Sugar found in whole fruits and vegetables and in milk is not free sugar.

U.S. dietary guidelines recommend getting no more than 10% of daily calories from added sugars. For a typical 2,000-calorie-per-day diet, that equals no more than 200 calories, or about 12 teaspoons. The CDC reports that the average person consumes 17 teaspoons per day, with the largest sources being sugar-sweetened beverages, desserts, and snacks. (For context: one 12-ounce can of soda contains the equivalent of 9 teaspoons of sugar, according to beverage maker Coca-Cola.)

The new analysis also found links between sugary beverage consumption and other diet and lifestyle characteristics that may contribute to health problems.

“People who consumed sugar-sweetened beverages more frequently were likely to ingest more total and saturated fat, carbohydrate, and sodium, and less fruit, fiber, dairy products, and whole grain foods,” the authors wrote. “This dietary pattern was also associated with more frequent smoking and drinking, lower physical activity levels, and more time spent watching television. Therefore, the role of these confounding factors should be taken into consideration when explaining the association between sugar consumption and burden of disease.”

Recommendations for limiting sugar consumption are in place worldwide, the authors noted. They concluded that more needs to be done given the known health dangers of sugar.

“To change sugar consumption patterns, especially for children and adolescents, a combination of widespread public health education and policies worldwide is urgently needed,” they said.

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

A new compilation of nearly all research to date on the health impacts of sugar offers dozens of reasons to cut back.

Researchers from China and the United States rounded up 8,601 scientific studies on sugar and combined them to evaluate its impact on 83 health outcomes. The studies accounted for decades of research on the topic, stretching back to the beginning of the largest electronic databases for scientific papers.

The result is a list that cites the world’s most common health problems like heart disease, diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, heart attack, high cholesterol, cancer, and depression. The findings were published in the BMJ. Researchers looked at studies that evaluated the impacts of consuming free sugars, which means any food that contains processed or naturally occurring sugars like table sugar, honey, or maple syrup. Sugar found in whole fruits and vegetables and in milk is not free sugar.

U.S. dietary guidelines recommend getting no more than 10% of daily calories from added sugars. For a typical 2,000-calorie-per-day diet, that equals no more than 200 calories, or about 12 teaspoons. The CDC reports that the average person consumes 17 teaspoons per day, with the largest sources being sugar-sweetened beverages, desserts, and snacks. (For context: one 12-ounce can of soda contains the equivalent of 9 teaspoons of sugar, according to beverage maker Coca-Cola.)

The new analysis also found links between sugary beverage consumption and other diet and lifestyle characteristics that may contribute to health problems.

“People who consumed sugar-sweetened beverages more frequently were likely to ingest more total and saturated fat, carbohydrate, and sodium, and less fruit, fiber, dairy products, and whole grain foods,” the authors wrote. “This dietary pattern was also associated with more frequent smoking and drinking, lower physical activity levels, and more time spent watching television. Therefore, the role of these confounding factors should be taken into consideration when explaining the association between sugar consumption and burden of disease.”

Recommendations for limiting sugar consumption are in place worldwide, the authors noted. They concluded that more needs to be done given the known health dangers of sugar.

“To change sugar consumption patterns, especially for children and adolescents, a combination of widespread public health education and policies worldwide is urgently needed,” they said.

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

A few months ago, after several months of considerable foot dragging, I wrote that I have accepted the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proclamation that we should begin to treat obesity as a disease.

While it may feel like we are just throwing in the towel, it sounds better if we admit that we may have reached the threshold beyond which total focus on prevention is not going to work.

I continue to be troubled by the lingering fear that, in declaring that obesity is a disease, we will suspend our current efforts at preventing the condition. Granted, most of these efforts at prevention have been woefully ineffective. However, I still believe that, much like ADHD, the rise in obesity in this country is a reflection of some serious flaws in our society. On the other hand, as an inveterate optimist I have not given up on the belief that we will find some yet-to-be-discovered changes in our societal fabric that will eventually turn the ship around.

With this somewhat contradictory combination of resignation and optimism in mind, I continue to seek out studies that hold some promise for prevention while we begin tinkering with the let’s-treat-it-like-a-disease approach.

I recently discovered a story about one such study from the Center for Economic and Social Research at the University of Southern California. Using data collected about adolescent dependents of military personnel, the researchers found that “exposure to a more advantageous built environment for more than 2 years was associated with lower probabilities of obesity.” Because more than half of these teenagers were living in housing that had been assigned by the military, the researchers could more easily control for a variety of factors some related to self-selection.

Interestingly, the data did not support associations between the adolescents’ diet, physical activity, or socioeconomic environments. The investigators noted that “more advantageous built environments were associated with lower consumption of unhealthy foods.” However, the study lacked the granularity to determine what segments of the built environment were most associated with the effect they were observing.

Like me, you may not be familiar with the term “built environment.” Turns out it is just exactly what we might expect – anything about the environment that is the result of human action – buildings, roadways, dams, neighborhoods – and what they do and don’t contain. For example, is the adolescent living in an environment that encourages walking or one that is overly motor vehicle–centric? Does his or her neighborhood have easily reachable grocery stores that offer a range of healthy foods or does the teenager live in a nutritional desert populated only by convenience stores? Is there ample space for outdoor physical activity?

The authors’ observation that the adolescents who benefited from living in advantageous environments had a lower consumption of unhealthy foods might suggest that access to a healthy diet might be a significant factor. For me, the take-home message is that in our search for preventive strategies we have barely scratched the surface. The observation that the associations these researchers were making was over a relatively short time span of 2 years should give us hope that if we think more broadly and creatively we may be to find solutions on a grand scale.

Over the last century we have built an environment that is clearly obesogenic. This paper offers a starting point from which we can learn which components of that environment are the most potent contributors to the obesity epidemic. Once we have that information the question remains: Can we find the political will to tear down and rebuilt?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A few months ago, after several months of considerable foot dragging, I wrote that I have accepted the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proclamation that we should begin to treat obesity as a disease.

While it may feel like we are just throwing in the towel, it sounds better if we admit that we may have reached the threshold beyond which total focus on prevention is not going to work.

I continue to be troubled by the lingering fear that, in declaring that obesity is a disease, we will suspend our current efforts at preventing the condition. Granted, most of these efforts at prevention have been woefully ineffective. However, I still believe that, much like ADHD, the rise in obesity in this country is a reflection of some serious flaws in our society. On the other hand, as an inveterate optimist I have not given up on the belief that we will find some yet-to-be-discovered changes in our societal fabric that will eventually turn the ship around.

With this somewhat contradictory combination of resignation and optimism in mind, I continue to seek out studies that hold some promise for prevention while we begin tinkering with the let’s-treat-it-like-a-disease approach.

I recently discovered a story about one such study from the Center for Economic and Social Research at the University of Southern California. Using data collected about adolescent dependents of military personnel, the researchers found that “exposure to a more advantageous built environment for more than 2 years was associated with lower probabilities of obesity.” Because more than half of these teenagers were living in housing that had been assigned by the military, the researchers could more easily control for a variety of factors some related to self-selection.

Interestingly, the data did not support associations between the adolescents’ diet, physical activity, or socioeconomic environments. The investigators noted that “more advantageous built environments were associated with lower consumption of unhealthy foods.” However, the study lacked the granularity to determine what segments of the built environment were most associated with the effect they were observing.

Like me, you may not be familiar with the term “built environment.” Turns out it is just exactly what we might expect – anything about the environment that is the result of human action – buildings, roadways, dams, neighborhoods – and what they do and don’t contain. For example, is the adolescent living in an environment that encourages walking or one that is overly motor vehicle–centric? Does his or her neighborhood have easily reachable grocery stores that offer a range of healthy foods or does the teenager live in a nutritional desert populated only by convenience stores? Is there ample space for outdoor physical activity?

The authors’ observation that the adolescents who benefited from living in advantageous environments had a lower consumption of unhealthy foods might suggest that access to a healthy diet might be a significant factor. For me, the take-home message is that in our search for preventive strategies we have barely scratched the surface. The observation that the associations these researchers were making was over a relatively short time span of 2 years should give us hope that if we think more broadly and creatively we may be to find solutions on a grand scale.

Over the last century we have built an environment that is clearly obesogenic. This paper offers a starting point from which we can learn which components of that environment are the most potent contributors to the obesity epidemic. Once we have that information the question remains: Can we find the political will to tear down and rebuilt?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A few months ago, after several months of considerable foot dragging, I wrote that I have accepted the American Academy of Pediatrics’ proclamation that we should begin to treat obesity as a disease.

While it may feel like we are just throwing in the towel, it sounds better if we admit that we may have reached the threshold beyond which total focus on prevention is not going to work.

I continue to be troubled by the lingering fear that, in declaring that obesity is a disease, we will suspend our current efforts at preventing the condition. Granted, most of these efforts at prevention have been woefully ineffective. However, I still believe that, much like ADHD, the rise in obesity in this country is a reflection of some serious flaws in our society. On the other hand, as an inveterate optimist I have not given up on the belief that we will find some yet-to-be-discovered changes in our societal fabric that will eventually turn the ship around.

With this somewhat contradictory combination of resignation and optimism in mind, I continue to seek out studies that hold some promise for prevention while we begin tinkering with the let’s-treat-it-like-a-disease approach.

I recently discovered a story about one such study from the Center for Economic and Social Research at the University of Southern California. Using data collected about adolescent dependents of military personnel, the researchers found that “exposure to a more advantageous built environment for more than 2 years was associated with lower probabilities of obesity.” Because more than half of these teenagers were living in housing that had been assigned by the military, the researchers could more easily control for a variety of factors some related to self-selection.

Interestingly, the data did not support associations between the adolescents’ diet, physical activity, or socioeconomic environments. The investigators noted that “more advantageous built environments were associated with lower consumption of unhealthy foods.” However, the study lacked the granularity to determine what segments of the built environment were most associated with the effect they were observing.

Like me, you may not be familiar with the term “built environment.” Turns out it is just exactly what we might expect – anything about the environment that is the result of human action – buildings, roadways, dams, neighborhoods – and what they do and don’t contain. For example, is the adolescent living in an environment that encourages walking or one that is overly motor vehicle–centric? Does his or her neighborhood have easily reachable grocery stores that offer a range of healthy foods or does the teenager live in a nutritional desert populated only by convenience stores? Is there ample space for outdoor physical activity?

The authors’ observation that the adolescents who benefited from living in advantageous environments had a lower consumption of unhealthy foods might suggest that access to a healthy diet might be a significant factor. For me, the take-home message is that in our search for preventive strategies we have barely scratched the surface. The observation that the associations these researchers were making was over a relatively short time span of 2 years should give us hope that if we think more broadly and creatively we may be to find solutions on a grand scale.

Over the last century we have built an environment that is clearly obesogenic. This paper offers a starting point from which we can learn which components of that environment are the most potent contributors to the obesity epidemic. Once we have that information the question remains: Can we find the political will to tear down and rebuilt?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

With more than 306 million views, #hormonebalance and #hormonebalancing are among the latest hacks to take over the social media platform TikTok, on which users post short videos. Influencers offer advice such as eating raw carrots for “happy hormones,” eating protein followed by fat for breakfast to regulate blood glucose, or taking vitamin B2 supplements for thyroid health.

Have you ever wondered if you were asleep during the lecture on “hormone balancing” in medical school? No, you weren’t. It was never a class for good reason, and you didn’t fail to read any such breakthrough studies in The New England Journal of Medicine either.

Although the sound bites no doubt garner attention among TikTok users, “hormone balancing” is a fictional term that is practically meaningless.

There are over 50 different hormones produced by humans and animals, regulating sleep, growth, metabolism and reproduction, among many other biological processes, so there is certainly no one-size-fits-all solution to ensure these are all working in perfect harmony.

When someone mentions “hormone balancing,” my mind wanders to the last time I took my car to have my tires rotated and balanced. If only it were as simple to balance hormones in real life. The best we can hope for is to get a specific hormone within the ideal physiologic range for that person’s age.

The term “hormone” can mean many things to different people. When a woman comes in with a hormone question, for example, it is often related to estrogen, followed by thyroid hormones. A wealth of misinformation exists in popular literature regarding these hormones alone.

Estrogen can be replaced, but not everyone needs it replaced. It depends on variables including age, underlying medical conditions, the time of day a test was drawn, and concomitant medications. Having low levels of a given hormone does not necessarily call for replacement either.

Insulin is another example of a hormone that can never completely be replaced in people with diabetes in a way that exactly mimics the normal physiologic release.

There are many lesser-known hormones that are measurable and replaceable but are also more difficult to reset to original manufacturer specifications.

A Google search for “hormone balancing” often sends you to “naturopaths” or “integrative medicine” practitioners, who often propose similar solutions to the TikTok influencers. Users are told that their hormones are out of whack and that restoring this “balance” can be achieved by purchasing whatever “natural products” or concoction they are selling.

These TikTok videos and online “experts” are the home-brewed versions of the strip-mall hormone specialists. TikTok videos claiming to help “balance hormones” typically don’t name a specific hormone either, or the end organs that each would have an impact on. Rather, they lump all hormones into a monolithic entity, implying that there is a single solution for all health problems. And personal testimonials extolling the benefits of a TikTok intervention don’t constitute proof of efficacy no matter how many “likes” they get. These influencers assume that viewers can “sense” their hormones are out of tune and no lab tests can convince them otherwise.

In these inflationary times, the cost of seeking medical care from conventional channels is increasingly prohibitive. It’s easy to understand the appeal of getting free advice from TikTok or some other Internet site. At best, following the advice will not have much impact; at worst, it could be harmful.
 

Don’t try this at home

There are some things that should never be tried at home, and do-it-yourself hormone replacement or remediation both fall under this umbrella.

Generally, the body does a good job of balancing its own hormones. Most patients don’t need to be worried if they’re in good health. If they’re in doubt, they should seek advice from a doctor, ideally an endocrinologist, but an ob.gyn. or general practitioner are also good options.

One of the first questions to ask a patient is “Which hormone are you worried about?” or “What health issue is it specifically that is bothering you?” Narrowing the focus to a single thing, if possible, will lead to a more efficient evaluation.

Often, patients arrive with multiple concerns written on little pieces of paper. These ubiquitous pieces of paper are the red flag for the flood of questions to follow.

Ordering the appropriate tests for the conditions they are concerned about can help put their minds at ease. If there are any specific deficiencies, or excesses in any hormones, then appropriate solutions can be discussed.

TikTok hormone-balancing solutions are simply the 21st-century version of the snake oil sold on late-night cable TV in the 1990s.

Needless to say, you should gently encourage your patients to stay away from these non–FDA-approved products, without making them feel stupid. Off-label use of hormones when these are not indicated is also to be avoided, unless a medical practitioner feels it is warranted.

Dr. de la Rosa is an endocrinologist in Englewood, Fla. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

With more than 306 million views, #hormonebalance and #hormonebalancing are among the latest hacks to take over the social media platform TikTok, on which users post short videos. Influencers offer advice such as eating raw carrots for “happy hormones,” eating protein followed by fat for breakfast to regulate blood glucose, or taking vitamin B2 supplements for thyroid health.

Have you ever wondered if you were asleep during the lecture on “hormone balancing” in medical school? No, you weren’t. It was never a class for good reason, and you didn’t fail to read any such breakthrough studies in The New England Journal of Medicine either.

Although the sound bites no doubt garner attention among TikTok users, “hormone balancing” is a fictional term that is practically meaningless.

There are over 50 different hormones produced by humans and animals, regulating sleep, growth, metabolism and reproduction, among many other biological processes, so there is certainly no one-size-fits-all solution to ensure these are all working in perfect harmony.

When someone mentions “hormone balancing,” my mind wanders to the last time I took my car to have my tires rotated and balanced. If only it were as simple to balance hormones in real life. The best we can hope for is to get a specific hormone within the ideal physiologic range for that person’s age.

The term “hormone” can mean many things to different people. When a woman comes in with a hormone question, for example, it is often related to estrogen, followed by thyroid hormones. A wealth of misinformation exists in popular literature regarding these hormones alone.

Estrogen can be replaced, but not everyone needs it replaced. It depends on variables including age, underlying medical conditions, the time of day a test was drawn, and concomitant medications. Having low levels of a given hormone does not necessarily call for replacement either.

Insulin is another example of a hormone that can never completely be replaced in people with diabetes in a way that exactly mimics the normal physiologic release.

There are many lesser-known hormones that are measurable and replaceable but are also more difficult to reset to original manufacturer specifications.

A Google search for “hormone balancing” often sends you to “naturopaths” or “integrative medicine” practitioners, who often propose similar solutions to the TikTok influencers. Users are told that their hormones are out of whack and that restoring this “balance” can be achieved by purchasing whatever “natural products” or concoction they are selling.

These TikTok videos and online “experts” are the home-brewed versions of the strip-mall hormone specialists. TikTok videos claiming to help “balance hormones” typically don’t name a specific hormone either, or the end organs that each would have an impact on. Rather, they lump all hormones into a monolithic entity, implying that there is a single solution for all health problems. And personal testimonials extolling the benefits of a TikTok intervention don’t constitute proof of efficacy no matter how many “likes” they get. These influencers assume that viewers can “sense” their hormones are out of tune and no lab tests can convince them otherwise.

In these inflationary times, the cost of seeking medical care from conventional channels is increasingly prohibitive. It’s easy to understand the appeal of getting free advice from TikTok or some other Internet site. At best, following the advice will not have much impact; at worst, it could be harmful.
 

Don’t try this at home

There are some things that should never be tried at home, and do-it-yourself hormone replacement or remediation both fall under this umbrella.

Generally, the body does a good job of balancing its own hormones. Most patients don’t need to be worried if they’re in good health. If they’re in doubt, they should seek advice from a doctor, ideally an endocrinologist, but an ob.gyn. or general practitioner are also good options.

One of the first questions to ask a patient is “Which hormone are you worried about?” or “What health issue is it specifically that is bothering you?” Narrowing the focus to a single thing, if possible, will lead to a more efficient evaluation.

Often, patients arrive with multiple concerns written on little pieces of paper. These ubiquitous pieces of paper are the red flag for the flood of questions to follow.

Ordering the appropriate tests for the conditions they are concerned about can help put their minds at ease. If there are any specific deficiencies, or excesses in any hormones, then appropriate solutions can be discussed.

TikTok hormone-balancing solutions are simply the 21st-century version of the snake oil sold on late-night cable TV in the 1990s.

Needless to say, you should gently encourage your patients to stay away from these non–FDA-approved products, without making them feel stupid. Off-label use of hormones when these are not indicated is also to be avoided, unless a medical practitioner feels it is warranted.

Dr. de la Rosa is an endocrinologist in Englewood, Fla. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

With more than 306 million views, #hormonebalance and #hormonebalancing are among the latest hacks to take over the social media platform TikTok, on which users post short videos. Influencers offer advice such as eating raw carrots for “happy hormones,” eating protein followed by fat for breakfast to regulate blood glucose, or taking vitamin B2 supplements for thyroid health.

Have you ever wondered if you were asleep during the lecture on “hormone balancing” in medical school? No, you weren’t. It was never a class for good reason, and you didn’t fail to read any such breakthrough studies in The New England Journal of Medicine either.

Although the sound bites no doubt garner attention among TikTok users, “hormone balancing” is a fictional term that is practically meaningless.

There are over 50 different hormones produced by humans and animals, regulating sleep, growth, metabolism and reproduction, among many other biological processes, so there is certainly no one-size-fits-all solution to ensure these are all working in perfect harmony.

When someone mentions “hormone balancing,” my mind wanders to the last time I took my car to have my tires rotated and balanced. If only it were as simple to balance hormones in real life. The best we can hope for is to get a specific hormone within the ideal physiologic range for that person’s age.

The term “hormone” can mean many things to different people. When a woman comes in with a hormone question, for example, it is often related to estrogen, followed by thyroid hormones. A wealth of misinformation exists in popular literature regarding these hormones alone.

Estrogen can be replaced, but not everyone needs it replaced. It depends on variables including age, underlying medical conditions, the time of day a test was drawn, and concomitant medications. Having low levels of a given hormone does not necessarily call for replacement either.

Insulin is another example of a hormone that can never completely be replaced in people with diabetes in a way that exactly mimics the normal physiologic release.

There are many lesser-known hormones that are measurable and replaceable but are also more difficult to reset to original manufacturer specifications.

A Google search for “hormone balancing” often sends you to “naturopaths” or “integrative medicine” practitioners, who often propose similar solutions to the TikTok influencers. Users are told that their hormones are out of whack and that restoring this “balance” can be achieved by purchasing whatever “natural products” or concoction they are selling.

These TikTok videos and online “experts” are the home-brewed versions of the strip-mall hormone specialists. TikTok videos claiming to help “balance hormones” typically don’t name a specific hormone either, or the end organs that each would have an impact on. Rather, they lump all hormones into a monolithic entity, implying that there is a single solution for all health problems. And personal testimonials extolling the benefits of a TikTok intervention don’t constitute proof of efficacy no matter how many “likes” they get. These influencers assume that viewers can “sense” their hormones are out of tune and no lab tests can convince them otherwise.

In these inflationary times, the cost of seeking medical care from conventional channels is increasingly prohibitive. It’s easy to understand the appeal of getting free advice from TikTok or some other Internet site. At best, following the advice will not have much impact; at worst, it could be harmful.
 

Don’t try this at home

There are some things that should never be tried at home, and do-it-yourself hormone replacement or remediation both fall under this umbrella.

Generally, the body does a good job of balancing its own hormones. Most patients don’t need to be worried if they’re in good health. If they’re in doubt, they should seek advice from a doctor, ideally an endocrinologist, but an ob.gyn. or general practitioner are also good options.

One of the first questions to ask a patient is “Which hormone are you worried about?” or “What health issue is it specifically that is bothering you?” Narrowing the focus to a single thing, if possible, will lead to a more efficient evaluation.

Often, patients arrive with multiple concerns written on little pieces of paper. These ubiquitous pieces of paper are the red flag for the flood of questions to follow.

Ordering the appropriate tests for the conditions they are concerned about can help put their minds at ease. If there are any specific deficiencies, or excesses in any hormones, then appropriate solutions can be discussed.

TikTok hormone-balancing solutions are simply the 21st-century version of the snake oil sold on late-night cable TV in the 1990s.

Needless to say, you should gently encourage your patients to stay away from these non–FDA-approved products, without making them feel stupid. Off-label use of hormones when these are not indicated is also to be avoided, unless a medical practitioner feels it is warranted.

Dr. de la Rosa is an endocrinologist in Englewood, Fla. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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

Court cases show that physicians continually underestimate their liability in supervising nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Even in states that have abolished requirements that NPs be physician-supervised, physicians may still be liable by virtue of employing the NP, according to William P. Sullivan, DO, an attorney and emergency physician in Frankfort, Ill.

Indeed, the vast majority of lawsuits against NPs and PAs name the supervising physician. According to a study of claims against NPs from 2011 to 2016, 82% of the cases also named the supervising physician.

Employed or contracted physicians assigned to supervise NPs or PAs are also affected, Dr. Sullivan said. “The employed physicians’ contract with a hospital or staffing company may require them to assist in the selection, supervision, and/or training of NPs or PAs,” he said. He added that supervisory duties may also be assigned through hospital bylaws.

“The physician is usually not paid anything extra for this work and may not be given extra time to perform it,” Dr. Sullivan said. But still, he said, that physician could be named in a lawsuit and wind up bearing some responsibility for an NP’s or PA’s mistake.

In addition to facing medical malpractice suits, Dr. Sullivan said, doctors are often sanctioned by state licensure boards for improperly supervising NPs and PAs. Licensure boards often require extensive protocols for supervision of NPs and PAs.
 

Yet more states are removing supervision requirements

With the addition of Kansas and New York in 2022 and California in 2023, 27 states no longer require supervision for all or most NPs. Sixteen of those states, including New York and California, have instituted progressive practice authority that requires temporary supervision of new NPs but then removes supervision after a period of 6 months to 4 years, depending on the state, for the rest of their career.

“When it comes to NP independence, the horse is already out of the barn,” Dr. Sullivan said. “It’s unlikely that states will repeal laws granting NPs independence, and in fact, more states are likely to pass them.”

*PAs, in contrast, are well behind NPs in achieving independence, but the American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is calling to eliminate a mandated relationship with a specific physician. So far, Utah, North Dakota and Wyoming have ended physician supervision of PAs, while California and Hawaii have eliminated mandated chart review. Other states are considering eliminating physician supervision of PAs, according to the AAPA.

In states that have abolished oversight requirements for NPs, “liability can then shift to the NP when the NP is fully independent,” Cathy Klein, an advanced practice registered nurse who helped found the NP profession 50 years ago, told this news organization. “More NPs are starting their own practices, and in many cases, patients actually prefer to see an NP.”

As more NPs became more autonomous, the average payment that NPs incurred in professional liability lawsuits rose by 10.5% from 2017 to 2022, to $332,187, according to the Nurses Service Organization (NSO), a nursing malpractice insurer.

The number of malpractice judgments against autonomous NPs alone has also been rising. From 2012 to 2017, autonomous NPs’ share of all NP cases rose from 7% to 16.4%, the NSO reported.

The good news for physicians is that states’ removal of restrictions on NPs has reduced physicians’ liability to some extent. A 2017 study found that enacting less restrictive scope-of-practice laws for NPs decreased the number of payments made by physicians in NP cases by as much as 31%.

However, the top location for NP payouts remains the physician’s office, not the autonomous NP’s practice, according to the latter NSO report. Plaintiffs sue NPs’ and PAs’ supervising physicians on the basis of legal concepts, such as vicarious liability and respondeat superior. Even if the physician-employer never saw the patient, he or she can be held liable.

Court cases in which supervising physician was found liable

There are plenty of judgments against supervising or collaborating physicians when the NP or PA made the error. Typically, the doctor was faulted for paying little attention to the NP or PA he or she was supposed to supervise.

Dr. Sullivan points to a 2016 case in which a New York jury held a physician 40% liable for a $7 million judgment in a malpractice case involving a PA’s care of a patient in the emergency department. The case is Shajan v. South Nassau Community Hospital in New York.

“The patient presented with nontraumatic leg pain to his lower leg, was diagnosed by the PA with a muscle strain, and discharged without a physician evaluation,” Dr. Sullivan said. The next day, the patient visited an orthopedist who immediately diagnosed compartment syndrome, an emergent condition in which pressure builds up in an affected extremity, damaging the muscles and nerves. “The patient developed irreversible nerve damage and chronic regional pain syndrome,” he said.

A malpractice lawsuit named the PA and the emergency physician he was supposed to be reporting to. Even though the physician had never seen the patient, he had signed off on the PA’s note from a patient’s ED visit. “Testimony during the trial focused on hospital protocols that the supervising physician was supposed to take,” Dr. Sullivan said.

When doctors share fault, they frequently failed to follow the collaborative agreement with the NP or PA. In Collip v. Ratts, a 2015 Indiana case in which the patient died from a drug interaction, the doctor’s certified public accountant stated that the doctor was required to review at least 5% of the NP’s charts every week to evaluate her prescriptive practices.

The doctor admitted that he never reviewed the NP’s charts on a weekly basis. He did conduct some cursory reviews of some of the NP’s notes, and in them he noted concerns for her prescribing practices and suggested she attend a narcotics-prescribing seminar, but he did not follow up to make sure she had done this.

Sometimes the NP or PA who made the mistake may actually be dropped from the lawsuit, leaving the supervising physician fully liable. In these cases, courts reason that a fully engaged supervisor could have prevented the error. In the 2006 case of  Husak v. Siegal, the Florida Supreme Court dropped the NP from the case, ruling that the NP had provided the supervising doctor all the information he needed in order to tell her what to do for the patient.

The court noted the physician had failed to look at the chart, even though he was required to do so under his supervisory agreement with the NP. The doctor “could have made the correct diagnosis or referral had he been attentive,” the court said. Therefore, there was “no evidence of independent negligence” by the NP, even though she was the one who had made the incorrect diagnosis that harmed the patient.

When states require an autonomous NP to have a supervisory relationship with a doctor, the supervisor may be unavailable and may fail to designate a substitute. In Texas in January 2019, a 7-year-old girl died of pneumonia after being treated by an NP in an urgent care clinic. The NP had told the parents that the child could safely go home and only needed ibuprofen. The parents brought the girl back home, and she died 15 hours later. The Wattenbargers sued the NP, and the doctor’s supervision was a topic in the trial.

The supervising physician for the NP was out of the country at the time. He said that he had found a substitute, but the substitute doctor testified she had no idea she was designated to be the substitute, according to Niran Al-Agba, MD, a family physician in Silverdale, Wash., who has written on the Texas case. Dr. Al-Agba told this news organization the case appears to have been settled confidentially.
 

Different standards for expert witnesses

In many states, courts do not allow physicians to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases against NPs, arguing that nurses have a different set of standards than doctors have, Dr. Sullivan reported.

These states include Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, and New York, according to a report by SEAK Inc., an expert witness training program. The report said most other states allow physician experts in these cases, but they may still require that they have experience with the nursing standard of care.

Dr. Sullivan said some courts are whittling away at the ban on physician experts, and the ban may eventually disappear. He reported that in Oklahoma, which normally upholds the ban, a judge recently allowed a physician-expert to testify in a case involving the death of a 19-year-old woman, Alexus Ochoa, in an ED staffed by an NP. The judge reasoned that Ms. Ochoa’s parents assumed the ED was staffed by physicians and would adhere to medical standards.
 

Supervision pointers from a physician

Physicians who supervise NPs or PAs say it is important to keep track of their skills and help them sharpen their expertise. Their scope of practice and physicians’ supervisory responsibilities are included in the collaborative agreement.

Arthur Apolinario, MD, a family physician in Clinton, N.C., says his 10-physician practice, which employs six NPs and one PA, works under a collaborative agreement. “The agreement defines each person’s scope of practice. They can’t do certain procedures, such as surgery, and they need extra training before doing certain tasks alone, such as joint injection.

“You have to always figure that if there is a lawsuit against one of them, you as the supervising physician would be named,” said Dr. Apolinario, who is also president of the North Carolina Medical Society. “We try to avert mistakes by meeting regularly with our NPs and PAs and making sure they keep up to date.”
 

Collaborating with autonomous NPs

Even when NPs operate independently in states that have abolished supervision, physicians may still have some liability if they give NPs advice, Dr. Al-Agba said.

At her Washington state practice, Dr. Al-Agba shares an office with an autonomous NP. “We share overhead and a front desk, but we have separate patients,” Dr. Al-Agba said. “This arrangement works very well for both of us.”

The NP sometimes asks her for advice. When this occurs, Dr. Al-Agba said she always makes sure to see the patient first. “If you don’t actually see the patient, there could be a misunderstanding that could lead to an error,” she said.
 

Conclusion

Even though NPs now have autonomy in most states, supervising physicians may still be liable for NP malpractice by virtue of being their employers, and physicians in the remaining states are liable for NPs through state law and for PAs in virtually all the states. To determine the supervising physician’s fault, courts often study whether the physician has met the terms of the collaborative agreement.

Physicians can reduce collaborating NPs’ and PAs’ liability by properly training them, by verifying their scope of practice, by making themselves easily available for consultation, and by occasionally seeing their patients. If their NPs and PAs do commit malpractice, supervising physicians may be able to protect themselves from liability by adhering to all requirements of the collaborative agreement.

*Correction, 4/19/2023: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the AAPA and the states that have ended physician supervision of PAs.

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