Clinical Psychiatry News

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) directly and independently exacerbates accumulation of alpha-synuclein in patients with Lewy body dementia, whereas APOE2 may have a protective effect, based on two recent studies involving mouse models and human patients.

These insights confirm the importance of APOE in synucleinopathies, and may lead to new treatments, according to Eliezer Masliah, MD, director of the division of neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging.

“These [studies] definitely implicate a role of APOE4,” Dr. Masliah said in an interview.

According to Dr. Masliah, previous studies linked the APOE4 genotype with cognitive decline in synucleinopathies, but underlying molecular mechanisms remained unknown.

“We [now] have more direct confirmation [based on] different experimental animal models,” Dr. Masliah said. “It also means that APOE4 could be a therapeutic target for dementia with Lewy bodies.”

The two studies were published simultaneously in Science Translational Medicine. The first study was conducted by Albert A. Davis, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues; the second was led by Na Zhao, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The studies are very synergistic, but used different techniques,” said Dr. Masliah, who was not involved in the studies.

Both studies involved mice that expressed a human variant of APOE: APOE2, APOE3, or APOE4. Three independent techniques were used to concurrently overexpress alpha-synuclein; Dr. Davis and colleagues used a transgenic approach, as well as striatal injection of alpha-synuclein preformed fibrils, whereas Dr. Zhao and colleagues turned to a viral vector. Regardless of technique, each APOE variant had a distinct impact on the level of alpha-synuclein accumulation.

“In a nutshell, [Dr. Davis and colleagues] found that those mice that have synuclein and APOE4 have a much more rapid progression of the disease,” Dr. Masliah said. “They become Parkinsonian much faster, but also, they become cognitively impaired much faster, and they have more synuclein in the brain. Remarkably, on the opposite side, those that were expressing APOE2, which we know is a protective allele, actually were far less impaired. So that’s really a remarkable finding.”

The study at the Mayo Clinic echoed these findings.

“Essentially, [Dr. Zhao and colleagues] had very similar results,” Dr. Masliah said. “[In mice expressing] APOE4, synuclein accumulation was worse and pathology was worse, and with APOE2, there was relative protection.”

Both studies found that the exacerbating effect of APOE4 translated to human patients.

Dr. Davis and colleagues evaluated data from 251 patients in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. A multivariate model showed that patients with the APOE4 genotype had faster cognitive decline, an impact that was independent of other variables, including cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of amyloid beta and tau protein (P = .0119). This finding was further supported by additional analyses involving 177 patients with Parkinson’s disease from the Washington University Movement Disorders Center, and another 1,030 patients enrolled in the NeuroGenetics Research Consortium study.

Dr. Zhao and colleagues evaluated postmortem samples from patients with Lewy body dementia who had minimal amyloid pathology. Comparing 22 APOE4 carriers versus 22 age- and sex-matched noncarriers, they found that carriers had significantly greater accumulations of alpha-synuclein (P less than .05).

According to the investigators, these findings could have both prognostic and therapeutic implications.

“[I]t is intriguing to speculate whether APOE and other potential genetic risk or resilience genes could be useful as screening tools to stratify risk for individual patients,” Dr. Davis and colleagues wrote in their paper. They went on to suggest that APOE genotyping may one day be used to personalize treatments for patients with neurodegenerative disease.

According to Dr. Masliah, several treatment strategies are under investigation.

“There are some pharmaceutical companies and also some academic groups that have been developing antibodies against APOE4 for Alzheimer’s disease, but certainly that could also be used for dementia with Lewy bodies,” he said. “There are other ways. One could [be] to suppress the expression of APOE4 with antisense or other technologies.

“There is also a very innovative technology that has been developed by the group at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, which is to switch APOE4 to APOE3.” This technique, Dr. Masliah explained, is accomplished by breaking a disulfide bond in APOE4, which opens the structure into an isoform that mimics APOE3. “They have developed small molecules that actually can break that bond and essentially chemically switch APOE4 to APOE3,” he said.

Although multiple techniques are feasible, Dr. Masliah stressed that these therapeutic efforts are still in their infancy.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms as to how APOE4 and alpha-synuclein interact,” he said. “I think we need a lot more work in this area.”

The Davis study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology/American Brain Foundation, the BrightFocus Foundation, the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust, and others; the investigators reported additional relationships with Biogen, Alector, Parabon, and others. The Zhao study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Lewy Body Dementia Center Without Walls; the investigators reported no competing interests. Dr. Masliah reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Davis AA et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3069; Zhao N et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay1809.

Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) directly and independently exacerbates accumulation of alpha-synuclein in patients with Lewy body dementia, whereas APOE2 may have a protective effect, based on two recent studies involving mouse models and human patients.

These insights confirm the importance of APOE in synucleinopathies, and may lead to new treatments, according to Eliezer Masliah, MD, director of the division of neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging.

“These [studies] definitely implicate a role of APOE4,” Dr. Masliah said in an interview.

According to Dr. Masliah, previous studies linked the APOE4 genotype with cognitive decline in synucleinopathies, but underlying molecular mechanisms remained unknown.

“We [now] have more direct confirmation [based on] different experimental animal models,” Dr. Masliah said. “It also means that APOE4 could be a therapeutic target for dementia with Lewy bodies.”

The two studies were published simultaneously in Science Translational Medicine. The first study was conducted by Albert A. Davis, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues; the second was led by Na Zhao, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The studies are very synergistic, but used different techniques,” said Dr. Masliah, who was not involved in the studies.

Both studies involved mice that expressed a human variant of APOE: APOE2, APOE3, or APOE4. Three independent techniques were used to concurrently overexpress alpha-synuclein; Dr. Davis and colleagues used a transgenic approach, as well as striatal injection of alpha-synuclein preformed fibrils, whereas Dr. Zhao and colleagues turned to a viral vector. Regardless of technique, each APOE variant had a distinct impact on the level of alpha-synuclein accumulation.

“In a nutshell, [Dr. Davis and colleagues] found that those mice that have synuclein and APOE4 have a much more rapid progression of the disease,” Dr. Masliah said. “They become Parkinsonian much faster, but also, they become cognitively impaired much faster, and they have more synuclein in the brain. Remarkably, on the opposite side, those that were expressing APOE2, which we know is a protective allele, actually were far less impaired. So that’s really a remarkable finding.”

The study at the Mayo Clinic echoed these findings.

“Essentially, [Dr. Zhao and colleagues] had very similar results,” Dr. Masliah said. “[In mice expressing] APOE4, synuclein accumulation was worse and pathology was worse, and with APOE2, there was relative protection.”

Both studies found that the exacerbating effect of APOE4 translated to human patients.

Dr. Davis and colleagues evaluated data from 251 patients in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. A multivariate model showed that patients with the APOE4 genotype had faster cognitive decline, an impact that was independent of other variables, including cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of amyloid beta and tau protein (P = .0119). This finding was further supported by additional analyses involving 177 patients with Parkinson’s disease from the Washington University Movement Disorders Center, and another 1,030 patients enrolled in the NeuroGenetics Research Consortium study.

Dr. Zhao and colleagues evaluated postmortem samples from patients with Lewy body dementia who had minimal amyloid pathology. Comparing 22 APOE4 carriers versus 22 age- and sex-matched noncarriers, they found that carriers had significantly greater accumulations of alpha-synuclein (P less than .05).

According to the investigators, these findings could have both prognostic and therapeutic implications.

“[I]t is intriguing to speculate whether APOE and other potential genetic risk or resilience genes could be useful as screening tools to stratify risk for individual patients,” Dr. Davis and colleagues wrote in their paper. They went on to suggest that APOE genotyping may one day be used to personalize treatments for patients with neurodegenerative disease.

According to Dr. Masliah, several treatment strategies are under investigation.

“There are some pharmaceutical companies and also some academic groups that have been developing antibodies against APOE4 for Alzheimer’s disease, but certainly that could also be used for dementia with Lewy bodies,” he said. “There are other ways. One could [be] to suppress the expression of APOE4 with antisense or other technologies.

“There is also a very innovative technology that has been developed by the group at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, which is to switch APOE4 to APOE3.” This technique, Dr. Masliah explained, is accomplished by breaking a disulfide bond in APOE4, which opens the structure into an isoform that mimics APOE3. “They have developed small molecules that actually can break that bond and essentially chemically switch APOE4 to APOE3,” he said.

Although multiple techniques are feasible, Dr. Masliah stressed that these therapeutic efforts are still in their infancy.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms as to how APOE4 and alpha-synuclein interact,” he said. “I think we need a lot more work in this area.”

The Davis study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology/American Brain Foundation, the BrightFocus Foundation, the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust, and others; the investigators reported additional relationships with Biogen, Alector, Parabon, and others. The Zhao study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Lewy Body Dementia Center Without Walls; the investigators reported no competing interests. Dr. Masliah reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Davis AA et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3069; Zhao N et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay1809.

Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) directly and independently exacerbates accumulation of alpha-synuclein in patients with Lewy body dementia, whereas APOE2 may have a protective effect, based on two recent studies involving mouse models and human patients.

These insights confirm the importance of APOE in synucleinopathies, and may lead to new treatments, according to Eliezer Masliah, MD, director of the division of neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging.

“These [studies] definitely implicate a role of APOE4,” Dr. Masliah said in an interview.

According to Dr. Masliah, previous studies linked the APOE4 genotype with cognitive decline in synucleinopathies, but underlying molecular mechanisms remained unknown.

“We [now] have more direct confirmation [based on] different experimental animal models,” Dr. Masliah said. “It also means that APOE4 could be a therapeutic target for dementia with Lewy bodies.”

The two studies were published simultaneously in Science Translational Medicine. The first study was conducted by Albert A. Davis, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues; the second was led by Na Zhao, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The studies are very synergistic, but used different techniques,” said Dr. Masliah, who was not involved in the studies.

Both studies involved mice that expressed a human variant of APOE: APOE2, APOE3, or APOE4. Three independent techniques were used to concurrently overexpress alpha-synuclein; Dr. Davis and colleagues used a transgenic approach, as well as striatal injection of alpha-synuclein preformed fibrils, whereas Dr. Zhao and colleagues turned to a viral vector. Regardless of technique, each APOE variant had a distinct impact on the level of alpha-synuclein accumulation.

“In a nutshell, [Dr. Davis and colleagues] found that those mice that have synuclein and APOE4 have a much more rapid progression of the disease,” Dr. Masliah said. “They become Parkinsonian much faster, but also, they become cognitively impaired much faster, and they have more synuclein in the brain. Remarkably, on the opposite side, those that were expressing APOE2, which we know is a protective allele, actually were far less impaired. So that’s really a remarkable finding.”

The study at the Mayo Clinic echoed these findings.

“Essentially, [Dr. Zhao and colleagues] had very similar results,” Dr. Masliah said. “[In mice expressing] APOE4, synuclein accumulation was worse and pathology was worse, and with APOE2, there was relative protection.”

Both studies found that the exacerbating effect of APOE4 translated to human patients.

Dr. Davis and colleagues evaluated data from 251 patients in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. A multivariate model showed that patients with the APOE4 genotype had faster cognitive decline, an impact that was independent of other variables, including cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of amyloid beta and tau protein (P = .0119). This finding was further supported by additional analyses involving 177 patients with Parkinson’s disease from the Washington University Movement Disorders Center, and another 1,030 patients enrolled in the NeuroGenetics Research Consortium study.

Dr. Zhao and colleagues evaluated postmortem samples from patients with Lewy body dementia who had minimal amyloid pathology. Comparing 22 APOE4 carriers versus 22 age- and sex-matched noncarriers, they found that carriers had significantly greater accumulations of alpha-synuclein (P less than .05).

According to the investigators, these findings could have both prognostic and therapeutic implications.

“[I]t is intriguing to speculate whether APOE and other potential genetic risk or resilience genes could be useful as screening tools to stratify risk for individual patients,” Dr. Davis and colleagues wrote in their paper. They went on to suggest that APOE genotyping may one day be used to personalize treatments for patients with neurodegenerative disease.

According to Dr. Masliah, several treatment strategies are under investigation.

“There are some pharmaceutical companies and also some academic groups that have been developing antibodies against APOE4 for Alzheimer’s disease, but certainly that could also be used for dementia with Lewy bodies,” he said. “There are other ways. One could [be] to suppress the expression of APOE4 with antisense or other technologies.

“There is also a very innovative technology that has been developed by the group at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, which is to switch APOE4 to APOE3.” This technique, Dr. Masliah explained, is accomplished by breaking a disulfide bond in APOE4, which opens the structure into an isoform that mimics APOE3. “They have developed small molecules that actually can break that bond and essentially chemically switch APOE4 to APOE3,” he said.

Although multiple techniques are feasible, Dr. Masliah stressed that these therapeutic efforts are still in their infancy.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms as to how APOE4 and alpha-synuclein interact,” he said. “I think we need a lot more work in this area.”

The Davis study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology/American Brain Foundation, the BrightFocus Foundation, the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust, and others; the investigators reported additional relationships with Biogen, Alector, Parabon, and others. The Zhao study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Lewy Body Dementia Center Without Walls; the investigators reported no competing interests. Dr. Masliah reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Davis AA et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3069; Zhao N et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay1809.

Metabolic syndrome is common among patients with schizophrenia, and those with metabolic syndrome are at significantly higher risk for cardiovascular disease, according to Shadi Naderyan Fe’li of the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd, Iran, and associates.

The cross-sectional study, performed on 100 patients with schizophrenia (83 men, 17 women), was published in the Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 27% (men, 21.7%; women, 52.9%); the most common component of metabolic disorder was low HDL cholesterol in males and abdominal adiposity in females.

Based on Framingham Risk Scores, 76% of study participants had a low risk of cardiovascular disease, 16% had intermediate risk, and 8% had high risk. However, patients were almost twice as likely to have intermediate or high risk of cardiovascular disease if they also had metabolic syndrome (P = .042).

“Considering the findings of this study as well as other recent reports, psychiatrists and health care staff should be informed about the potential metabolic side effects of antipsychotics and unhealthy lifestyles among these patients. Furthermore, regular monitoring of metabolic risk factors is suggested. In addition, medical and behavioral interventions should be conducted for patients with [metabolic syndrome],” the investigators concluded.

The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fe’li SN et al. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.33.97.

Metabolic syndrome is common among patients with schizophrenia, and those with metabolic syndrome are at significantly higher risk for cardiovascular disease, according to Shadi Naderyan Fe’li of the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd, Iran, and associates.

The cross-sectional study, performed on 100 patients with schizophrenia (83 men, 17 women), was published in the Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 27% (men, 21.7%; women, 52.9%); the most common component of metabolic disorder was low HDL cholesterol in males and abdominal adiposity in females.

Based on Framingham Risk Scores, 76% of study participants had a low risk of cardiovascular disease, 16% had intermediate risk, and 8% had high risk. However, patients were almost twice as likely to have intermediate or high risk of cardiovascular disease if they also had metabolic syndrome (P = .042).

“Considering the findings of this study as well as other recent reports, psychiatrists and health care staff should be informed about the potential metabolic side effects of antipsychotics and unhealthy lifestyles among these patients. Furthermore, regular monitoring of metabolic risk factors is suggested. In addition, medical and behavioral interventions should be conducted for patients with [metabolic syndrome],” the investigators concluded.

The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fe’li SN et al. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.33.97.

Metabolic syndrome is common among patients with schizophrenia, and those with metabolic syndrome are at significantly higher risk for cardiovascular disease, according to Shadi Naderyan Fe’li of the department of biostatistics and epidemiology at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd, Iran, and associates.

The cross-sectional study, performed on 100 patients with schizophrenia (83 men, 17 women), was published in the Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 27% (men, 21.7%; women, 52.9%); the most common component of metabolic disorder was low HDL cholesterol in males and abdominal adiposity in females.

Based on Framingham Risk Scores, 76% of study participants had a low risk of cardiovascular disease, 16% had intermediate risk, and 8% had high risk. However, patients were almost twice as likely to have intermediate or high risk of cardiovascular disease if they also had metabolic syndrome (P = .042).

“Considering the findings of this study as well as other recent reports, psychiatrists and health care staff should be informed about the potential metabolic side effects of antipsychotics and unhealthy lifestyles among these patients. Furthermore, regular monitoring of metabolic risk factors is suggested. In addition, medical and behavioral interventions should be conducted for patients with [metabolic syndrome],” the investigators concluded.

The investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fe’li SN et al. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.33.97.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.

Gurzzza/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.

Gurzzza/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.

Gurzzza/Thinkstock

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

[email protected]

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

[email protected]

When it comes to state funding for tobacco prevention and cessation, the American Lung Association grades on a curve. It did not help.

The ALA gave failing grades to 43 states in its new State of Tobacco Control report, along with three A’s, one C, and four D’s, despite a grading formula that passed anything better than a 50%.

Each state’s annual funding for tobacco prevention and cessation was calculated and then compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended spending level. That percentage became the grade, with any level of funding at 80% or more of the CDC’s recommendation getting an A and anything below 50% getting an F, the ALA explained.

The three A’s went to Alaska – which spent $10.14 million, or 99.4% of the CDC-recommended $10.2 million – California (96.0%), and Maine (83.5%). The lowest levels of spending came from Georgia, which spend just 2.8% of the CDC’s recommendation of $106 million, and Missouri, which spent 3.0%, the ALA reported.

States’ grades were generally better in the four other areas of tobacco-control policy: There were 24 A’s and 9 F’s for smoke-free air laws, 1 A and 35 F’s for tobacco excise taxes, 3 A’s and 17 F’s for access to cessation treatment, and 10 A’s and 30 F’s for laws to raise the tobacco sales age to 21 years, the ALA said in the report.

Despite an overall grade of F, the federal government managed to earn some praise in that last area: “In what could only be described as unimaginable even 2 years ago, in December 2019, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco products to 21,” the ALA said.

The federal government was strongly criticized on the subject of e-cigarettes. “The Trump Administration failed to prioritize public health over the tobacco industry with its Jan. 2, 2020, announcement that will leave thousands of flavored e-cigarettes on the market,” the ALA said, while concluding that the rising use of e-cigarettes in recent years “is a real-world demonstration of the failure of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to properly oversee all tobacco products. … This failure places the lung health and lives of Americans at risk.”

[email protected]

Women who have experienced early pregnancy loss may experience clinically significant posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression 9 months after the loss, new research suggests.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

The outcomes of a prospective cohort study involving 737 women who had experienced miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy and 171 controls with healthy pregnancies were presented in a report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

One month after their pregnancy loss, 29% of these women met the criteria for posttraumatic stress, 24% reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 11% reported moderate to severe depression. In comparison, just 13% of women in the control group met the criteria for anxiety, and 2% met the criteria for depression, which meant women who had experienced early pregnancy loss had a greater than twofold odds of anxiety and nearly fourfold (odds ratio, 3.88) greater odds of depression, reported Jessica Farren, PhD, of the Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital, London, and coauthors.

The most common posttraumatic symptom, experienced by 91% of respondents with posttraumatic stress at 1 month after the pregnancy, was reexperiencing symptoms, while 60% experienced avoidance and hyperarousal symptoms. At 3 months after the loss, 50% of those with posttraumatic stress reported an interruption of their general satisfaction with life.

While the incidence of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression decreased over time in the women who had early pregnancy loss, by the third month 21% still met the criteria for posttraumatic stress, and by 9 months, 18% still were experiencing posttraumatic stress. Similarly, moderate to severe anxiety was still present in 23% of women at 3 months and 17% at 9 months, and moderate to severe depression was still experienced by 8% of women at 3 months and 6% of women at 9 months.

Dr. Farren and coauthors wrote that, given the incidence of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy in the population, the high proportion of women still experiencing posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression at 9 months pointed to a significant public health issue. “It is recognized that PTSD in other contexts can have a significant impact on work, social interaction, health care utilization, and risks in future pregnancies,” they wrote. “Work is needed to evaluate strategies to effectively identify and treat affected women with these specific psychopathologies.”

The investigators also looked at the differences in outcomes in women who experienced miscarriage, compared with those who experienced ectopic pregnancy.

Of the 363 women who had a miscarriage, 30% met criteria for posttraumatic stress at 1 month, 20% at 3 months, and 17% at 9 months. Moderate to severe anxiety was reported by 25% women at 1 month, 22% at 3 months, and 17% at 9 months. Moderate to severe depression was reported by 12% at 1 month, 7% at 3 months, and 5% at 9 months.

Of the 74 women who had an ectopic pregnancy, 23% met criteria for posttraumatic stress at 1 month, 28% at 3 months, and 21% at 9 months. Moderate to severe anxiety was reported by 21% at 1 month, 30% at 3 months, and 23% at 9 months. Moderate to severe depression was reported by 7% at 1 month, 12% at 3 months, and 11% at 9 months.

The authors noted that the incidence of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression decreased more strongly over time in women who had experienced miscarriage, compared with those who experienced ectopic pregnancy, although they commented that the confidence intervals were wide.

One coauthor was supported by an Imperial Health Charity grant and another by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Farren J et al. Amer J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.10.102.

Women who have experienced early pregnancy loss may experience clinically significant posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression 9 months after the loss, new research suggests.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

The outcomes of a prospective cohort study involving 737 women who had experienced miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy and 171 controls with healthy pregnancies were presented in a report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

One month after their pregnancy loss, 29% of these women met the criteria for posttraumatic stress, 24% reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 11% reported moderate to severe depression. In comparison, just 13% of women in the control group met the criteria for anxiety, and 2% met the criteria for depression, which meant women who had experienced early pregnancy loss had a greater than twofold odds of anxiety and nearly fourfold (odds ratio, 3.88) greater odds of depression, reported Jessica Farren, PhD, of the Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital, London, and coauthors.

The most common posttraumatic symptom, experienced by 91% of respondents with posttraumatic stress at 1 month after the pregnancy, was reexperiencing symptoms, while 60% experienced avoidance and hyperarousal symptoms. At 3 months after the loss, 50% of those with posttraumatic stress reported an interruption of their general satisfaction with life.

While the incidence of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression decreased over time in the women who had early pregnancy loss, by the third month 21% still met the criteria for posttraumatic stress, and by 9 months, 18% still were experiencing posttraumatic stress. Similarly, moderate to severe anxiety was still present in 23% of women at 3 months and 17% at 9 months, and moderate to severe depression was still experienced by 8% of women at 3 months and 6% of women at 9 months.

Dr. Farren and coauthors wrote that, given the incidence of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy in the population, the high proportion of women still experiencing posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression at 9 months pointed to a significant public health issue. “It is recognized that PTSD in other contexts can have a significant impact on work, social interaction, health care utilization, and risks in future pregnancies,” they wrote. “Work is needed to evaluate strategies to effectively identify and treat affected women with these specific psychopathologies.”

The investigators also looked at the differences in outcomes in women who experienced miscarriage, compared with those who experienced ectopic pregnancy.

Of the 363 women who had a miscarriage, 30% met criteria for posttraumatic stress at 1 month, 20% at 3 months, and 17% at 9 months. Moderate to severe anxiety was reported by 25% women at 1 month, 22% at 3 months, and 17% at 9 months. Moderate to severe depression was reported by 12% at 1 month, 7% at 3 months, and 5% at 9 months.

Of the 74 women who had an ectopic pregnancy, 23% met criteria for posttraumatic stress at 1 month, 28% at 3 months, and 21% at 9 months. Moderate to severe anxiety was reported by 21% at 1 month, 30% at 3 months, and 23% at 9 months. Moderate to severe depression was reported by 7% at 1 month, 12% at 3 months, and 11% at 9 months.

The authors noted that the incidence of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression decreased more strongly over time in women who had experienced miscarriage, compared with those who experienced ectopic pregnancy, although they commented that the confidence intervals were wide.

One coauthor was supported by an Imperial Health Charity grant and another by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Farren J et al. Amer J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.10.102.

Women who have experienced early pregnancy loss may experience clinically significant posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression 9 months after the loss, new research suggests.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

The outcomes of a prospective cohort study involving 737 women who had experienced miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy and 171 controls with healthy pregnancies were presented in a report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

One month after their pregnancy loss, 29% of these women met the criteria for posttraumatic stress, 24% reported moderate to severe anxiety, and 11% reported moderate to severe depression. In comparison, just 13% of women in the control group met the criteria for anxiety, and 2% met the criteria for depression, which meant women who had experienced early pregnancy loss had a greater than twofold odds of anxiety and nearly fourfold (odds ratio, 3.88) greater odds of depression, reported Jessica Farren, PhD, of the Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital, London, and coauthors.

The most common posttraumatic symptom, experienced by 91% of respondents with posttraumatic stress at 1 month after the pregnancy, was reexperiencing symptoms, while 60% experienced avoidance and hyperarousal symptoms. At 3 months after the loss, 50% of those with posttraumatic stress reported an interruption of their general satisfaction with life.

While the incidence of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression decreased over time in the women who had early pregnancy loss, by the third month 21% still met the criteria for posttraumatic stress, and by 9 months, 18% still were experiencing posttraumatic stress. Similarly, moderate to severe anxiety was still present in 23% of women at 3 months and 17% at 9 months, and moderate to severe depression was still experienced by 8% of women at 3 months and 6% of women at 9 months.

Dr. Farren and coauthors wrote that, given the incidence of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy in the population, the high proportion of women still experiencing posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression at 9 months pointed to a significant public health issue. “It is recognized that PTSD in other contexts can have a significant impact on work, social interaction, health care utilization, and risks in future pregnancies,” they wrote. “Work is needed to evaluate strategies to effectively identify and treat affected women with these specific psychopathologies.”

The investigators also looked at the differences in outcomes in women who experienced miscarriage, compared with those who experienced ectopic pregnancy.

Of the 363 women who had a miscarriage, 30% met criteria for posttraumatic stress at 1 month, 20% at 3 months, and 17% at 9 months. Moderate to severe anxiety was reported by 25% women at 1 month, 22% at 3 months, and 17% at 9 months. Moderate to severe depression was reported by 12% at 1 month, 7% at 3 months, and 5% at 9 months.

Of the 74 women who had an ectopic pregnancy, 23% met criteria for posttraumatic stress at 1 month, 28% at 3 months, and 21% at 9 months. Moderate to severe anxiety was reported by 21% at 1 month, 30% at 3 months, and 23% at 9 months. Moderate to severe depression was reported by 7% at 1 month, 12% at 3 months, and 11% at 9 months.

The authors noted that the incidence of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression decreased more strongly over time in women who had experienced miscarriage, compared with those who experienced ectopic pregnancy, although they commented that the confidence intervals were wide.

One coauthor was supported by an Imperial Health Charity grant and another by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Farren J et al. Amer J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec 13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.10.102.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. William G. Wilkoff’s doubts that an increase in medical schools/students and/or foreign medical graduates is the answer to the physician shortage felt by many areas of the country (Letters From Maine, “Help Wanted,” Nov. 2019, page 19). All you have to do is look at the glut of physicians – and just about any other profession – in metropolitan areas versus rural America, and ask basic questions regarding why those doctors practice where they do. You will quickly discover that most are willing to trade the possibility of a higher salary in areas where their presence is more needed to achieve more school choices, jobs for a spouse, and likely a more favorable call schedule. Something more attractive than salary or the prospect of more “elbow room” is desired.

Here in Mississippi we may have found an answer to the problem. A few years ago our state legislature started the Mississippi Rural Health Scholarship Program that pays for recipients to attend a state-run medical school on scholarship in exchange for agreeing to practice at least 4 years in a rural area of the state (less than 20k population) following their primary care residency (family medicine, pediatrics, ob.gyn., med-peds, internal medicine, and, recently added, psychiatry). Although a recent increase in the number of pediatric residency slots at our state’s sole program will no doubt also have a positive effect to this end, such a scholarship program as the one implemented by Mississippi is the best way to compete with the various intangibles that lead people to choose bigger cities over rural areas of the state to practice their trade. Once there, many – like myself – will find that such a practice is not only a good business decision but often is a wonderful place to raise a family. Meanwhile, our own practice just added a fourth physician as a result of said Rural Health Scholarship Program, and we could not be more satisfied with the result.
 

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. William G. Wilkoff’s doubts that an increase in medical schools/students and/or foreign medical graduates is the answer to the physician shortage felt by many areas of the country (Letters From Maine, “Help Wanted,” Nov. 2019, page 19). All you have to do is look at the glut of physicians – and just about any other profession – in metropolitan areas versus rural America, and ask basic questions regarding why those doctors practice where they do. You will quickly discover that most are willing to trade the possibility of a higher salary in areas where their presence is more needed to achieve more school choices, jobs for a spouse, and likely a more favorable call schedule. Something more attractive than salary or the prospect of more “elbow room” is desired.

Here in Mississippi we may have found an answer to the problem. A few years ago our state legislature started the Mississippi Rural Health Scholarship Program that pays for recipients to attend a state-run medical school on scholarship in exchange for agreeing to practice at least 4 years in a rural area of the state (less than 20k population) following their primary care residency (family medicine, pediatrics, ob.gyn., med-peds, internal medicine, and, recently added, psychiatry). Although a recent increase in the number of pediatric residency slots at our state’s sole program will no doubt also have a positive effect to this end, such a scholarship program as the one implemented by Mississippi is the best way to compete with the various intangibles that lead people to choose bigger cities over rural areas of the state to practice their trade. Once there, many – like myself – will find that such a practice is not only a good business decision but often is a wonderful place to raise a family. Meanwhile, our own practice just added a fourth physician as a result of said Rural Health Scholarship Program, and we could not be more satisfied with the result.
 

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. William G. Wilkoff’s doubts that an increase in medical schools/students and/or foreign medical graduates is the answer to the physician shortage felt by many areas of the country (Letters From Maine, “Help Wanted,” Nov. 2019, page 19). All you have to do is look at the glut of physicians – and just about any other profession – in metropolitan areas versus rural America, and ask basic questions regarding why those doctors practice where they do. You will quickly discover that most are willing to trade the possibility of a higher salary in areas where their presence is more needed to achieve more school choices, jobs for a spouse, and likely a more favorable call schedule. Something more attractive than salary or the prospect of more “elbow room” is desired.

Here in Mississippi we may have found an answer to the problem. A few years ago our state legislature started the Mississippi Rural Health Scholarship Program that pays for recipients to attend a state-run medical school on scholarship in exchange for agreeing to practice at least 4 years in a rural area of the state (less than 20k population) following their primary care residency (family medicine, pediatrics, ob.gyn., med-peds, internal medicine, and, recently added, psychiatry). Although a recent increase in the number of pediatric residency slots at our state’s sole program will no doubt also have a positive effect to this end, such a scholarship program as the one implemented by Mississippi is the best way to compete with the various intangibles that lead people to choose bigger cities over rural areas of the state to practice their trade. Once there, many – like myself – will find that such a practice is not only a good business decision but often is a wonderful place to raise a family. Meanwhile, our own practice just added a fourth physician as a result of said Rural Health Scholarship Program, and we could not be more satisfied with the result.
 

In October 2012, Pamela Wible, MD, attended a memorial service in her town for a physician who had died by suicide. Sitting in the third row, she began to count all the colleagues she had lost to suicide, and the result shocked her: 3 in her small town alone, 10 if she expanded her scope to all the doctors she’d ever known.

And so she set out on a mission to document as many physician suicides as she could, in an attempt to understand why her fellow doctors were taking their lives. “I viewed this as a personal quest,” she said in an interview. “I wanted to find out why my friends were dying.” Over the course of 7 years, she documented more than 1,300 physician suicides in the United States with the help of individuals who have lost colleagues and loved ones. She maintains a suicide prevention hotline for medical students and doctors.

On her website, Dr. Wible calls high physician suicide rates a “public health crisis.” She states many conclusions from the stories she’s collected, among them that anesthesiologists are at highest risk for suicide among physicians.

The claim that doctors have a high suicide rate is a common one beyond Dr. Wible’s documentation project. Frequently cited papers contend that 300 physicians commit suicide per year, and that physicians’ suicide rate is higher than the general population. Researchers presenting at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in 2018 said physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession – double that of the general population, with one completed suicide every day – and Medscape’s coverage of the talk has been widely referenced as supporting evidence.

A closer look at the data behind these claims, however, reveals the difficulty of establishing reliable statistics. Dr. Wible acknowledges that her data are limited. “We do not have accurate numbers. These [statistics] have come to me organically,” she said. Incorrectly coded death certificates are one reason it’s hard to get solid information. “When we’re trying to figure out how many doctors do die by suicide, it’s very hard to know.”

Similar claims have been made at various times about dentists, construction workers, and farmers, perhaps in an effort to call attention to difficult working conditions and inadequate mental health care. Overall, the claims about physician suicide are “widely quoted as fact without any clear evidence,” said Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who researches physician wellness, mental health, and suicide. It’s critical to know the accurate numbers, she said, “so we can know if we’re making progress.”

Scrutinizing a statistic

The idea for the research presented at the APA meeting in 2018 came up a year earlier “when there were quite a number of physician deaths by suicide,” lead author Omotola T’Sarumi, MD, psychiatrist and chief resident at Columbia University’s Harlem Hospital in New York at the time of the presentation, said in an interview. The poster describes the methodology as a systematic review of research articles published in the last 10 years. Dr. T’Sarumi and colleagues concluded that the rate was 28-40 suicides per 100,000 doctors, compared with a rate of 12.3 per 100,000 for the general population. “That just stunned me,” she said. “We should be doing better.” A peer-reviewed article on the work has not been published.

The references on the poster show limited data to support the headline conclusion that physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession: four papers and a book chapter. The poster itself does not describe the methodology used to arrive at the numbers stated, and Dr. T’Sarumi said that she was unable to gain access to her previous research since moving to a new institution. Dr. Gold, the first author on one of the papers the poster cites, said there are “huge issues” with the work. “In my paper that they’re citing, I was not looking at rates of suicide,” she said. “This is just picking a couple of studies and highlighting them.”

Dr. Gold’s paper uses data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) to identify differences in risk factors and suicide methods between physicians and others who died by suicide in 17 states. The researchers did not attempt to quantify a difference in overall rates, but found that physicians who end their own lives are more likely to have a known mental health disorder with lower rates of medication treatment than nonphysicians. “Inadequate treatment and increased problems related to job stress may be potentially modifiable risk factors to reduce suicidal death among physicians,” the authors conclude.

The second study referenced in the 2018 poster, “A History of Physician Suicide in America” by Rupinder Legha, MD, offers a narrative history of physician suicide, including a reference to an 1897 editorial in the Philadelphia Medical and Surgical Reporter that says: “Our profession is more prone to suicide than any other.” The study does not, however, attempt to quantify that risk.

The third study referenced does offer a quantitative analysis based on death and census data in 26 states, and concludes that the suicide rate for white female physicians was about two times higher than the general population. For white male physicians and dentists, however, the study found that the overall rate of suicide was lower than in the general population, but higher in male physicians and dentists older than 55 years.

In search of reliable data

With all of the popular but poorly substantiated claims about physician suicide, Dr. Gold argues that getting accurate numbers is critical. Without them, there is no way to know if rates are increasing or decreasing over time, or if attempts to help physicians in crisis are effective.

The CDC just released its own updated analysis of NVDRS data by major occupational groups across 32 states in 2016. It shows that males and females in the construction and extraction industries had the highest suicide rates: 49.4 per 100,000 and 25.5 per 100,000 respectively. Males in the “health care practitioners and technical” occupation group had a lower than average rate, while females in the same group had a higher than average rate.

The most reliable data that exist, according to Dr. Gold, are found in the CDC’s National Occupational Mortality Surveillance catalog, though it does not contain information from all states and is missing several years of records. Based on its data, the CDC provides a proportionate mortality ratio (PMR) that indicates whether the proportion of deaths tied to a given cause for a given occupation appears high or low, compared with all other occupations. But occupation data are often missing from the CDC’s records, which could make the PMRs unreliable. “You’re talking about relatively small numbers,” said Dr. Gold. “Even if we’re talking about 400 a year, the difference in one or two or five people being physicians could make a huge difference in the rate.”

The PMR for physicians who have died by intentional self-harm suggests that they are 2.5 times as likely as other populations to die by suicide. Filtering the data by race and gender, it appears black female physicians are at highest risk, more than five times as likely to die by suicide as other populations, while white males are twice as likely. Overall, the professionals with highest suicide risk in the database are hunters and trappers, followed by podiatrists, dentists, veterans, and nuclear engineers. Physicians follow with the fifth-highest rate.

The only way to get a true sense of physician suicide rates would be to collect all of the vital records data that states report to the federal government, according to Dr. Gold. “That would require 50 separate institutional review boards, so I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort to do that study,” she said.

Even without a reliable, exact number, it’s clear there are more physician suicides than there should be, Dr. Gold said. “This is a population that really should not be having a relatively high number of suicide deaths, whether it’s highest or not.”

As Dr. Legha wrote in his “History of Physician Suicide,” cited in the 2018 APA poster: “The problem of physician suicide is not solely a matter of whether or not it takes place at a rate higher than the general public. That a professional caregiver can fall ill and not receive adequate care and support, despite being surrounded by other caregivers, begs for a thoughtful assessment to determine why it happens at all.”

If you or someone you know is in need of support, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s toll-free number is 1-800-273-TALK (8255). A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In October 2012, Pamela Wible, MD, attended a memorial service in her town for a physician who had died by suicide. Sitting in the third row, she began to count all the colleagues she had lost to suicide, and the result shocked her: 3 in her small town alone, 10 if she expanded her scope to all the doctors she’d ever known.

And so she set out on a mission to document as many physician suicides as she could, in an attempt to understand why her fellow doctors were taking their lives. “I viewed this as a personal quest,” she said in an interview. “I wanted to find out why my friends were dying.” Over the course of 7 years, she documented more than 1,300 physician suicides in the United States with the help of individuals who have lost colleagues and loved ones. She maintains a suicide prevention hotline for medical students and doctors.

On her website, Dr. Wible calls high physician suicide rates a “public health crisis.” She states many conclusions from the stories she’s collected, among them that anesthesiologists are at highest risk for suicide among physicians.

The claim that doctors have a high suicide rate is a common one beyond Dr. Wible’s documentation project. Frequently cited papers contend that 300 physicians commit suicide per year, and that physicians’ suicide rate is higher than the general population. Researchers presenting at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in 2018 said physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession – double that of the general population, with one completed suicide every day – and Medscape’s coverage of the talk has been widely referenced as supporting evidence.

A closer look at the data behind these claims, however, reveals the difficulty of establishing reliable statistics. Dr. Wible acknowledges that her data are limited. “We do not have accurate numbers. These [statistics] have come to me organically,” she said. Incorrectly coded death certificates are one reason it’s hard to get solid information. “When we’re trying to figure out how many doctors do die by suicide, it’s very hard to know.”

Similar claims have been made at various times about dentists, construction workers, and farmers, perhaps in an effort to call attention to difficult working conditions and inadequate mental health care. Overall, the claims about physician suicide are “widely quoted as fact without any clear evidence,” said Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who researches physician wellness, mental health, and suicide. It’s critical to know the accurate numbers, she said, “so we can know if we’re making progress.”

Scrutinizing a statistic

The idea for the research presented at the APA meeting in 2018 came up a year earlier “when there were quite a number of physician deaths by suicide,” lead author Omotola T’Sarumi, MD, psychiatrist and chief resident at Columbia University’s Harlem Hospital in New York at the time of the presentation, said in an interview. The poster describes the methodology as a systematic review of research articles published in the last 10 years. Dr. T’Sarumi and colleagues concluded that the rate was 28-40 suicides per 100,000 doctors, compared with a rate of 12.3 per 100,000 for the general population. “That just stunned me,” she said. “We should be doing better.” A peer-reviewed article on the work has not been published.

The references on the poster show limited data to support the headline conclusion that physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession: four papers and a book chapter. The poster itself does not describe the methodology used to arrive at the numbers stated, and Dr. T’Sarumi said that she was unable to gain access to her previous research since moving to a new institution. Dr. Gold, the first author on one of the papers the poster cites, said there are “huge issues” with the work. “In my paper that they’re citing, I was not looking at rates of suicide,” she said. “This is just picking a couple of studies and highlighting them.”

Dr. Gold’s paper uses data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) to identify differences in risk factors and suicide methods between physicians and others who died by suicide in 17 states. The researchers did not attempt to quantify a difference in overall rates, but found that physicians who end their own lives are more likely to have a known mental health disorder with lower rates of medication treatment than nonphysicians. “Inadequate treatment and increased problems related to job stress may be potentially modifiable risk factors to reduce suicidal death among physicians,” the authors conclude.

The second study referenced in the 2018 poster, “A History of Physician Suicide in America” by Rupinder Legha, MD, offers a narrative history of physician suicide, including a reference to an 1897 editorial in the Philadelphia Medical and Surgical Reporter that says: “Our profession is more prone to suicide than any other.” The study does not, however, attempt to quantify that risk.

The third study referenced does offer a quantitative analysis based on death and census data in 26 states, and concludes that the suicide rate for white female physicians was about two times higher than the general population. For white male physicians and dentists, however, the study found that the overall rate of suicide was lower than in the general population, but higher in male physicians and dentists older than 55 years.

In search of reliable data

With all of the popular but poorly substantiated claims about physician suicide, Dr. Gold argues that getting accurate numbers is critical. Without them, there is no way to know if rates are increasing or decreasing over time, or if attempts to help physicians in crisis are effective.

The CDC just released its own updated analysis of NVDRS data by major occupational groups across 32 states in 2016. It shows that males and females in the construction and extraction industries had the highest suicide rates: 49.4 per 100,000 and 25.5 per 100,000 respectively. Males in the “health care practitioners and technical” occupation group had a lower than average rate, while females in the same group had a higher than average rate.

The most reliable data that exist, according to Dr. Gold, are found in the CDC’s National Occupational Mortality Surveillance catalog, though it does not contain information from all states and is missing several years of records. Based on its data, the CDC provides a proportionate mortality ratio (PMR) that indicates whether the proportion of deaths tied to a given cause for a given occupation appears high or low, compared with all other occupations. But occupation data are often missing from the CDC’s records, which could make the PMRs unreliable. “You’re talking about relatively small numbers,” said Dr. Gold. “Even if we’re talking about 400 a year, the difference in one or two or five people being physicians could make a huge difference in the rate.”

The PMR for physicians who have died by intentional self-harm suggests that they are 2.5 times as likely as other populations to die by suicide. Filtering the data by race and gender, it appears black female physicians are at highest risk, more than five times as likely to die by suicide as other populations, while white males are twice as likely. Overall, the professionals with highest suicide risk in the database are hunters and trappers, followed by podiatrists, dentists, veterans, and nuclear engineers. Physicians follow with the fifth-highest rate.

The only way to get a true sense of physician suicide rates would be to collect all of the vital records data that states report to the federal government, according to Dr. Gold. “That would require 50 separate institutional review boards, so I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort to do that study,” she said.

Even without a reliable, exact number, it’s clear there are more physician suicides than there should be, Dr. Gold said. “This is a population that really should not be having a relatively high number of suicide deaths, whether it’s highest or not.”

As Dr. Legha wrote in his “History of Physician Suicide,” cited in the 2018 APA poster: “The problem of physician suicide is not solely a matter of whether or not it takes place at a rate higher than the general public. That a professional caregiver can fall ill and not receive adequate care and support, despite being surrounded by other caregivers, begs for a thoughtful assessment to determine why it happens at all.”

If you or someone you know is in need of support, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s toll-free number is 1-800-273-TALK (8255). A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In October 2012, Pamela Wible, MD, attended a memorial service in her town for a physician who had died by suicide. Sitting in the third row, she began to count all the colleagues she had lost to suicide, and the result shocked her: 3 in her small town alone, 10 if she expanded her scope to all the doctors she’d ever known.

And so she set out on a mission to document as many physician suicides as she could, in an attempt to understand why her fellow doctors were taking their lives. “I viewed this as a personal quest,” she said in an interview. “I wanted to find out why my friends were dying.” Over the course of 7 years, she documented more than 1,300 physician suicides in the United States with the help of individuals who have lost colleagues and loved ones. She maintains a suicide prevention hotline for medical students and doctors.

On her website, Dr. Wible calls high physician suicide rates a “public health crisis.” She states many conclusions from the stories she’s collected, among them that anesthesiologists are at highest risk for suicide among physicians.

The claim that doctors have a high suicide rate is a common one beyond Dr. Wible’s documentation project. Frequently cited papers contend that 300 physicians commit suicide per year, and that physicians’ suicide rate is higher than the general population. Researchers presenting at the American Psychiatric Association meeting in 2018 said physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession – double that of the general population, with one completed suicide every day – and Medscape’s coverage of the talk has been widely referenced as supporting evidence.

A closer look at the data behind these claims, however, reveals the difficulty of establishing reliable statistics. Dr. Wible acknowledges that her data are limited. “We do not have accurate numbers. These [statistics] have come to me organically,” she said. Incorrectly coded death certificates are one reason it’s hard to get solid information. “When we’re trying to figure out how many doctors do die by suicide, it’s very hard to know.”

Similar claims have been made at various times about dentists, construction workers, and farmers, perhaps in an effort to call attention to difficult working conditions and inadequate mental health care. Overall, the claims about physician suicide are “widely quoted as fact without any clear evidence,” said Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, an associate professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who researches physician wellness, mental health, and suicide. It’s critical to know the accurate numbers, she said, “so we can know if we’re making progress.”

Scrutinizing a statistic

The idea for the research presented at the APA meeting in 2018 came up a year earlier “when there were quite a number of physician deaths by suicide,” lead author Omotola T’Sarumi, MD, psychiatrist and chief resident at Columbia University’s Harlem Hospital in New York at the time of the presentation, said in an interview. The poster describes the methodology as a systematic review of research articles published in the last 10 years. Dr. T’Sarumi and colleagues concluded that the rate was 28-40 suicides per 100,000 doctors, compared with a rate of 12.3 per 100,000 for the general population. “That just stunned me,” she said. “We should be doing better.” A peer-reviewed article on the work has not been published.

The references on the poster show limited data to support the headline conclusion that physicians have the highest suicide rate of any profession: four papers and a book chapter. The poster itself does not describe the methodology used to arrive at the numbers stated, and Dr. T’Sarumi said that she was unable to gain access to her previous research since moving to a new institution. Dr. Gold, the first author on one of the papers the poster cites, said there are “huge issues” with the work. “In my paper that they’re citing, I was not looking at rates of suicide,” she said. “This is just picking a couple of studies and highlighting them.”

Dr. Gold’s paper uses data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) to identify differences in risk factors and suicide methods between physicians and others who died by suicide in 17 states. The researchers did not attempt to quantify a difference in overall rates, but found that physicians who end their own lives are more likely to have a known mental health disorder with lower rates of medication treatment than nonphysicians. “Inadequate treatment and increased problems related to job stress may be potentially modifiable risk factors to reduce suicidal death among physicians,” the authors conclude.

The second study referenced in the 2018 poster, “A History of Physician Suicide in America” by Rupinder Legha, MD, offers a narrative history of physician suicide, including a reference to an 1897 editorial in the Philadelphia Medical and Surgical Reporter that says: “Our profession is more prone to suicide than any other.” The study does not, however, attempt to quantify that risk.

The third study referenced does offer a quantitative analysis based on death and census data in 26 states, and concludes that the suicide rate for white female physicians was about two times higher than the general population. For white male physicians and dentists, however, the study found that the overall rate of suicide was lower than in the general population, but higher in male physicians and dentists older than 55 years.

In search of reliable data

With all of the popular but poorly substantiated claims about physician suicide, Dr. Gold argues that getting accurate numbers is critical. Without them, there is no way to know if rates are increasing or decreasing over time, or if attempts to help physicians in crisis are effective.

The CDC just released its own updated analysis of NVDRS data by major occupational groups across 32 states in 2016. It shows that males and females in the construction and extraction industries had the highest suicide rates: 49.4 per 100,000 and 25.5 per 100,000 respectively. Males in the “health care practitioners and technical” occupation group had a lower than average rate, while females in the same group had a higher than average rate.

The most reliable data that exist, according to Dr. Gold, are found in the CDC’s National Occupational Mortality Surveillance catalog, though it does not contain information from all states and is missing several years of records. Based on its data, the CDC provides a proportionate mortality ratio (PMR) that indicates whether the proportion of deaths tied to a given cause for a given occupation appears high or low, compared with all other occupations. But occupation data are often missing from the CDC’s records, which could make the PMRs unreliable. “You’re talking about relatively small numbers,” said Dr. Gold. “Even if we’re talking about 400 a year, the difference in one or two or five people being physicians could make a huge difference in the rate.”

The PMR for physicians who have died by intentional self-harm suggests that they are 2.5 times as likely as other populations to die by suicide. Filtering the data by race and gender, it appears black female physicians are at highest risk, more than five times as likely to die by suicide as other populations, while white males are twice as likely. Overall, the professionals with highest suicide risk in the database are hunters and trappers, followed by podiatrists, dentists, veterans, and nuclear engineers. Physicians follow with the fifth-highest rate.

The only way to get a true sense of physician suicide rates would be to collect all of the vital records data that states report to the federal government, according to Dr. Gold. “That would require 50 separate institutional review boards, so I doubt anyone is going to go to the effort to do that study,” she said.

Even without a reliable, exact number, it’s clear there are more physician suicides than there should be, Dr. Gold said. “This is a population that really should not be having a relatively high number of suicide deaths, whether it’s highest or not.”

As Dr. Legha wrote in his “History of Physician Suicide,” cited in the 2018 APA poster: “The problem of physician suicide is not solely a matter of whether or not it takes place at a rate higher than the general public. That a professional caregiver can fall ill and not receive adequate care and support, despite being surrounded by other caregivers, begs for a thoughtful assessment to determine why it happens at all.”

If you or someone you know is in need of support, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s toll-free number is 1-800-273-TALK (8255). A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald J. Trump took on multiple health care issues in his State of the Union address, imploring Congress to avoid the “socialism” of Medicare-for-all, to pass legislation banning late-term abortions, and to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions while joining together to reduce rising drug prices.

Mr. Trump said his administration has already been “taking on the big pharmaceutical companies,” claiming that, in 2019, “for the first time in 51 years, the cost of prescription drugs actually went down.”

That statement was called “misleading” by the New York Times because such efforts have excluded some high-cost drugs, and prices had risen by the end of the year, the publication noted in a fact-check of the president’s speech.

A survey issued in December 2019 found that the United States pays the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

But the president did throw down a gauntlet for Congress. “Working together, the Congress can reduce drug prices substantially from current levels,” he said, stating that he had been “speaking to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and others in the Congress in order to get something on drug pricing done, and done properly.

“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” Mr. Trump said.

A group of House Democrats then stood up in the chamber and loudly chanted, “HR3, HR3,” referring to the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, which the House passed in December 2019.

The bill would give the Department of Health & Human Services the power to negotiate directly with drug companies on up to 250 drugs per year, in particular, the highest-costing and most-utilized drugs.

The Senate has not taken up the legislation, but Sen. Grassley (R) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a similar bill, the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. It has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee but has not been moved to the Senate floor.

“I appreciate President Trump recognizing the work we’re doing to lower prescription drug prices,” Sen. Grassley said in a statement after the State of the Union. “Iowans and Americans across the country are demanding reforms that lower sky-high drug costs. A recent poll showed 70% of Americans want Congress to make lowering drug prices its top priority.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he believed Trump was committed to lowering drug costs. “I’ve never seen a president lean in further than President Donald Trump on lowering health care costs,” said Rep. Walden in a statement after the speech.

Trump touted his price transparency rule, which he said would go into effect next January, as a key way to cut health care costs.

Preexisting conditions

The president said that since he’d taken office, insurance had become more affordable and that the quality of health care had improved. He also said that he was making what he called an “iron-clad pledge” to American families.

“We will always protect patients with preexisting conditions – that is a guarantee,” Mr. Trump said.

In a press conference before the speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took issue with that pledge. “The president swears that he supports protections for people with preexisting conditions, but right now, he is fighting in federal court to eliminate these lifesaving protections and every last protection and benefit of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.

During the speech, Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) tweeted “#FactCheck: Claiming to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, Trump and his administration have repeatedly sought to undermine protections offered by the ACA through executive orders and the courts. He is seeking to strike down the law and its protections entirely.”

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out in a tweet that insurance plans that Trump touted as “affordable alternatives” are in fact missing those protections.

“Ironically, the cheaper health insurance plans that President Trump has expanded are short-term plans that don’t cover preexisting conditions,” Mr. Levitt said.

Socialist takeover

Mr. Trump condemned the Medicare-for-all proposals that have been introduced in Congress and that are being backed in whole or in part by all of the Democratic candidates for president.

“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Mr. Trump.

He said that 132 members of Congress “have endorsed legislation to impose a socialist takeover of our health care system, wiping out the private health insurance plans of 180 million Americans.”

Added Mr. Trump: “We will never let socialism destroy American health care!”

Medicare-for-all has waxed and waned in popularity among voters, with generally more Democrats than Republicans favoring a single-payer system, with or without a public option.

Preliminary exit polls in Iowa that were conducted during Monday’s caucus found that 57% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported a single-payer plan; 38% opposed such a plan, according to the Washington Post.
 

Opioids, the coronavirus, and abortion

In some of his final remarks on health care, Mr. Trump cited progress in the opioid crisis, noting that, in 2019, drug overdose deaths declined for the first time in 30 years.

He said that his administration was coordinating with the Chinese government regarding the coronavirus outbreak and noted the launch of initiatives to improve care for people with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s, and mental health problems.

Mr. Trump repeated his 2019 State of the Union claim that the government would help end AIDS in America by the end of the decade.

The president also announced that he was asking Congress for “an additional $50 million” to fund neonatal research. He followed that up with a plea about abortion.

“I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he said.

Insulin costs?

In the days before the speech, some news outlets had reported that Mr. Trump and the HHS were working on a plan to lower insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries, and there were suggestions it would come up in the speech.

At least 13 members of Congress invited people advocating for lower insulin costs as their guests for the State of the Union, Stat reported. Rep. Pelosi invited twins from San Francisco with type 1 diabetes as her guests.

But Mr. Trump never mentioned insulin in his speech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.