Clinical Endocrinology News

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

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

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

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

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

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

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

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

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.