Mixed Topics

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

New models are needed for delivering long-term care (LTC) that are home-based, cost-effective, and appropriate for older adults with a range of care needs.^1,2 In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $7.4 billion on LTC, accounting for 13% of total VA health care spending. Overall, 71% of LTC spending in FY 2015 was allocated to institutional care.³ Beyond cost, 95% of older adults prefer to remain in community rather than institutional LTC settings, such as nursing homes.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic created additional concerns related to the spread of infectious disease, with > 37% of COVID-19 deaths in the United States occurring in nursing homes irrespective of facility quality.^5,6

One community-based LTC alternative developed within the VA is the Medical Foster Home (MFH) program. The MFH program is an adult foster care program in which veterans who are unable to live independently receive round-the-clock care in the home of a community-based caregiver.⁷ MFH caregivers usually have previous experience caring for family, working in a nursing home, or working as a caregiver in another capacity. These caregivers are responsible for providing 24-hour supervision and support to residents in their MFH and can care for up to 3 adults. In the MFH program, VA home-based primary care (HBPC) teams composed of physicians, registered nurses, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians, and psychologists, provide primary care for MFH veterans and oversee care in the caregiver’s home.

The goal of the VA HBPC program is to improve veterans’ access to medical care and shift LTC services from institutional to noninstitutional settings by providing in-home care for those who are too sick or disabled to go to a clinic for care. On average, veterans pay the MFH caregiver $2,500 out-of-pocket per month for their care.⁸ In 2016, there were 992 veterans residing in MFHs across the country.⁹ Since MFH program implementation expanded nationwide in 2008, more than 4,000 veterans have resided in MFHs in 45 states and territories.¹⁰

The VA is required to pay for nursing home care for veterans who have a qualifying VA service-connected disability or who meet a specific threshold of disability.¹¹ Currently, the VA is not authorized to pay for MFH care for veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for VA-paid nursing home care. Over the past decade, the VA has introduced and expanded several initiatives and programs to help veterans who require LTC remain in their homes and communities. These include but are not limited to the Veteran Directed Care program, the Choose Home Initiative, and the Caregiver Support Program.^12-14 Additionally, attempts have been made to pass legislation to authorize the VA to pay for MFH for veterans’ care whose military benefits include coverage for nursing home care.¹⁵ This legislation and VA initiatives are clear signs that the VA is committed to supporting programs such as the MFH program. Given this commitment, demand for the MFH program will likely increase.

Therefore, VA practitioners need to better identify which veterans are currently in the MFH program. While veterans are expected to need nursing home level care to qualify for MFH enrollment, little has been published about the physical and mental health care needs of veterans currently receiving MFH care. One previous study compared the demographics, diagnostic characteristics, and care utilization of MFH veterans with that of veterans receiving LTC in VA community living centers (CLCs), and found that veterans in MFHs had similar levels of frailty and comorbidity and had a higher mean age when compared with veterans in CLCs.¹⁶

Our study assessed a sample of veterans living in MFHs and describes these veterans’ clinical and functional characteristics. We used the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) to complete the assessments to allow comparisons with other populations residing in long-term care.^17,18 While MDS assessments are required for Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing home residents and for residents in VA CLCs, this study was the first attempt to perform in-home MDS data assessments in MFHs. This collection of descriptive clinical data is an important first step in providing VA practitioners with information about the characteristics of veterans currently cared for in MFHs and policymakers with data to think critically about which veterans are willing to pay for the MFH program.

Methods

This study was part of a larger research project assessing the impact of the MFH program on veterans’ outcomes and health care spending as well as factors influencing program growth.^{7,9,10,16,19-23} We report on the characteristics of veterans staying in MFHs, using data from the MDS, including a clinical assessment of patients’ cognitive, function, and health care–related needs, collected from participants recruited for this study.

Five research nurses were trained to administer the MDS assessment to veterans in MFHs. Data were collected between April 2014 and December 2015 from veterans at MFH sites associated with 4 urban VA medical centers in 4 different Veterans Integrated Service Networks (58 total homes). While the VA medical centers (VAMCs)were urban, many of the MFHs were in rural areas, given that MFHs can be up to 50 miles from the associated VAMC. We selected MFH sites for this study based on MFH program veteran census. Specifically, we identified MFH sites with high veteran enrollment to ensure we would have a sufficiently large sample for participant recruitment.

Veterans who had resided in an MFH for at least 90 days were eligible to participate. Of the 155 veterans mailed a letter of invitation to participate, 92 (59%) completed the in-home MDS assessment. Reasons for not participating included: 13 veterans died prior to data collection, 18 veterans declined to participate, 18 family members or legal guardians of cognitively impaired veterans did not want the veteran to participate, and 14 veterans left the MFH program or were hospitalized at the time of data collection.

Family members and legal guardians who declined participation on behalf of a veteran reported that they felt the veteran was too frail to participate or that participating would be an added burden on the veteran. Based on the census of veterans residing in all MFHs nationally in November 2015 (N = 972), 9.5% of MFH veterans were included in this study.⁷This study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB #12–31), in addition to the local VA research and development review boards where MFH MDS assessments were collected.

Assessment Instrument and Variables

The MDS 3.0 assesses numerous aspects of clinical and functional status. Several resident-level characteristics from the MDS 3.0 were included in this study. The Cognitive Function Scale (CFS) was used to categorize cognitive function. The CFS is a categorical variable that is created from MDS 3.0 data. The CFS integrates self- and staff-reported data to classify individuals as cognitively intact, mildly impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired based on respondents’ Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment or staff-reported cognitive function collected as part of the MDS 3.0.²⁴ We explored depression by calculating a mean summary severity score for all respondents from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item interview (PHQ-9).²⁵ PHQ-9 summary scores range from 0 to 27, with mean scores of ≤ 4 indicating no or minimal depression, and higher scores corresponding to more severe depression as scores increase. For respondents who were unable to complete the PHQ-9, we calculated mean PHQ Observational Version (PHQ-9-OV) scores.

We included 2 variables to characterize behaviors: wandering frequency and presence and frequency of aggressive behaviors. We summarized aggressive behaviors using the Aggressive and Reactive Behavior Scale, which characterizes whether a resident has none, mild, moderate, or severe behavioral symptoms based on the presence and frequency of physical and verbal behaviors and resistance to care.^26,27 We included items that described pain, number of falls since admission or prior assessment, degree of urinary and bowel continence (always continent vs not always continent) and mobility device use to describe respondents’ health conditions and functional status. To characterize pain, we used veteran’s self-reported frequency and intensity of pain experienced in the prior 5 days and classified the experienced pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Finally, demographic characteristics included age and gender.

To determine functional status, we included measures of needing help to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS allows us to understand functional status ranging from ADLs lost early in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bathing, hygiene) to those lost in the middle (ie, walking, dressing, toileting, transferring) to those lost late in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bed mobility and eating).^28,29 To assess MFH veterans’ independence in mobility, we considered the veteran’s ability to walk without supervision or assistance in the hallway outside of their room, ability to move between their room and hallway, and ability to move throughout the house. Mobility includes use of an assistive device such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair if the veteran can use it without assistance. We summarized dependency in ADLs, using a combined score of dependence in bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on unit, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene that ranges from 0 (independent) to 28 (completely dependent).³⁰ Additionally, we created 3-category variables to indicate the degree of dependence in performing ADLs (independent, supervision or assistance, and completely dependent).

Finally, we included diagnoses identified as active to explore differences in neurologic, mood, psychiatric, and chronic disease morbidity. In the MDS 3.0 assessment, an active diagnosis is defined as a diagnosis documented by a licensed independent practitioner in the prior 60 days that has affected the resident or their care in the prior 7 days.

Analysis

We conducted statistical analyses using Stata MP version 15.1 (StataCorp). We summarized demographic characteristics, cognitive function scores, depression scores, pain status, behavioral symptoms, incidence of falls, degree of continence, functional status, and comorbidities, using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables.

Results

Of the 92 MFH veterans in our sample, 85% were male and 83% were aged ≥ 65 years (Table 1). Veterans had an average length of stay of 927 days at the time of MDS assessment. More than half (55%) of MFH veterans had cognitive impairment (ranging from mild to severe). The mean (SD) depression score was 3.3 (3.9), indicating minimal depression. For veterans who could not complete the depression questionnaire, the mean (SD) staff-assessed depression score was 5.9 (5.5), suggesting mild depression. Overall, 22% of the sample had aggressive behaviors but only 7 were noted to be severe. Few residents had caregiver-reported wandering. Self-reported pain intensity indicated that 45% of the sample had mild, moderate, or severe pain. While more than half the cohort had complete bowel continence (53%), only 36% had complete urinary continence. Use of mobility devices was common, with 56% of residents using a wheelchair, 42% using a walker, and 14% using a cane. One-fourth of veterans had fallen at least once since admission to the MFH.

Of the 11 ADLs assessed, the percentage of MFH veterans requiring assistance with early and mid-loss ADLs ranged from 63% for transferring to 84% for bathing (Table 2). Even for the late-loss ADL of eating, 57% of the MFH cohort required assistance. Overall, MFH veterans had an average ADL dependency score of 11.

Discussion

In this study, we describe the characteristics of veterans receiving LTC in a sample of MFHs. This is the first study to assess veteran health and function across a group of MFHs. To help provide context for the description of MFH residents, we compared demographic characteristics, cognitive impairment, depression, pain, behaviors, functional status, and morbidity of veterans in the MFH program to long-stay residents in community nursing homes (eAppendix 1-3 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0102). A comparison with this reference population suggests that these MFH and nursing home cohorts are similar in terms of age, wandering behavior, incidence of falls, and prevalence of neurologic, psychiatric, and chronic diseases. Compared with nursing home residents, veterans in the MFH cohort had slightly higher mood symptom scores, were more likely to display aggressive behavior, and were more likely to report experiencing moderate and severe pain.

Additionally, MFH veterans displayed a lower level of cognitive impairment, fewer functional impairments, measured by the ADL dependency score, and were less likely to be bowel or bladder incontinent. Despite an overall lower ADL dependency score, a similar proportion of MFH veterans and nursing home residents were totally dependent in performing 7 of 11 ADLs and a higher proportion of MFH veterans were completely dependent for toileting (22% long-stay nursing home vs 31% MFH). The only ADLs for which there was a higher proportion of long-stay nursing home residents who were totally dependent compared with MFH residents were walking in room (54% long-stay nursing home vs 38% MFH), walking in the corridor (57% long-stay nursing home vs 33% MFH), and locomotion off the unit (36% long-stay nursing home vs 22% MFH).

While the rates of total ADL dependence among veterans in MFHs suggest that MFHs are providing care to a subset of veterans with high levels of functional impairment and care needs, MFHs are also providing care to veterans who are more independent in performing ADLs and who resemble low-care nursing home residents. A low-care nursing home resident is broadly defined as an one who does not need assistance performing late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, transferring, toileting, and eating) and who does not have the Resource Utilization Group classification of special rehab or clinically complex.^31,32 Due to their overall higher functional capacity, low-care residents, even those with chronic medical care needs, may be more appropriately cared for in less intensive care settings than in nursing homes. About 5% to 30% of long-stay nursing home residents can be classified as low care.^31,33-37 Additionally, a majority of newly admitted nursing home patients report a preference for or support community discharge rather than long-stay nursing home care, suggesting that many nursing home residents have the potential and desire to transition to a community-based setting.³³

Based on the prevalence of veterans in our sample who are similar to low-care nursing home residents and the national focus on shifting LTC to community-based settings, MFHs may be an ideal setting for both low-care nursing home residents and those seeking community-based alternatives to traditional, institutionalized LTC. Additionally, given that we observed greater behavioral and pain needs and similar rates of comorbidities in MFH veterans relative to long-stay nursing home residents, our results indicate that MFHs also have the capacity to care for veterans with higher care needs who desire community-based LTC.

Previous research identified barriers to program MFH growth that may contribute to referral of veterans with fewer ADL dependencies compared with long-stay nursing home residents. A key barrier to MFH referral is that nursing home referral requires selection of a home, whereas MFH referral involves matching veterans with appropriate caregivers, which requires time to align the veteran’s needs with the right caregiver in the right home.⁷ Given the rigors of finding a match, VA staff who refer veterans may preferentially refer veterans with greater ADL impairments to nursing homes, assuming that higher levels of care needs will complicate the matching process and reserve MFH referral for only the highest functioning candidates.¹⁹ However, the ADL data presented here indicate that many MFH residents with significant levels of ADL dependence are living in MFHs. Meeting the care needs of those who have higher ADL dependencies is possible because MFH coordinators and HBPC providers deliver individual, ongoing education to MFH caregivers about caring for MFH veterans and provide available resources needed to safely care for MFH veterans across the spectrum of ADL dependency.⁷

Veterans with higher levels of functional dependence may also be referred to nursing homes rather than to MFHs because of payment issues. Independent of the VA, veterans or their families negotiate a contract with their caregiver to pay out-of-pocket for MFH caregiving as well as room and board. Particularly for veterans who have military benefits to cover nursing home care costs, the out-of-pocket payment for veterans with high degrees of functional dependence increase as needs increase. These out-of-pocket payments may serve as a barrier to MFH enrollment. The proposed Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act, which would allow the VA to pay for MFH care for eligible veterans may address this barrier.¹⁵

Another possible explanation for the higher rates of functional independence in the MFH cohort is that veterans with functional impairment are not being referred to MFHs. A previous study of the MFH program found that health care providers were often unaware of the program and as a result did not refer eligible veterans to this alternative LTC option.⁷ The changes proposed by the Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act may result in an increase in demand in MFH care and thus increase awareness of the program among VA physicians.¹⁵

Limitations

There are several potential limitations in this study. First, there are limits to the generalizability of the MFH sample given that the sample of veterans was not randomly selected and that weights were not applied to account for nonresponse bias. Second, charting requirements in MFHs are less intensive compared with nursing home tracking. While the training for research nurses on how to conduct MDS assessments in MFHs was designed to simulate the process in nursing homes, MDS data were likely impacted by differences in charting practices. In addition, MFH caregivers may report certain items, such as aggressive behaviors, more often because they observe MFH veterans round-the-clock compared with NH caregivers who work in shifts and have a lower caregiver to resident ratio. The current data suggest differences in prevalence of behavioral symptoms.

Future studies should examine whether this reflects differences in the populations served or differences in how MFH caregivers track and manage behavioral symptoms. Third, this study was conducted at only MFH sites associated with 4 VAMCs, thus our findings may not be generalizable to veterans in other areas. Finally, there may be differences in the veterans who agreed to participate in the study compared with those who declined to participate. For example, it is possible that the eligible MFH veterans who declined to participate in this study were more functionally impaired than those who did participate. More than one-third (39%) of the family members of cognitively impaired MFH veterans who did not participate cited concerns about the veteran’s frailty as a primary reason for declining to participate. Consequently, the high level of functional status among veterans included in this study compared to nursing home residents may be in part a result of selection bias from more ADL-impaired veterans declining to participate in the study.

Conclusions

Although the MFH program has provided LTC nationally to veterans for nearly 2 decades, this study is the first to administer in-home MDS assessments to veterans in MFHs, allowing for a detailed description of cognitive, functional, and behavioral characteristics of MFH residents. In this study, we found that veterans currently receiving care in MFHs have a wide range of care needs. Our findings indicate that MFHs are caring for some veterans with high functional impairment as well as those who are completely independent in performing ADLs.

Moreover, these results are a preliminary attempt to assist VA health care providers in determining which veterans can be cared for in an MFH such that they can make informed referrals to this alternative LTC setting. To improve the generalizability of these findings, future studies should collect MDS 3.0 assessments longitudinally from a representative sample of veterans in MFHs. Further research is needed to explore how VA providers make the decision to refer a veteran to an MFH compared to a nursing home. Additionally, the percentage of veterans in this study who reported experiencing pain may indicate the need to identify innovative, integrated pain management programs for home settings.

New models are needed for delivering long-term care (LTC) that are home-based, cost-effective, and appropriate for older adults with a range of care needs.^1,2 In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $7.4 billion on LTC, accounting for 13% of total VA health care spending. Overall, 71% of LTC spending in FY 2015 was allocated to institutional care.³ Beyond cost, 95% of older adults prefer to remain in community rather than institutional LTC settings, such as nursing homes.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic created additional concerns related to the spread of infectious disease, with > 37% of COVID-19 deaths in the United States occurring in nursing homes irrespective of facility quality.^5,6

One community-based LTC alternative developed within the VA is the Medical Foster Home (MFH) program. The MFH program is an adult foster care program in which veterans who are unable to live independently receive round-the-clock care in the home of a community-based caregiver.⁷ MFH caregivers usually have previous experience caring for family, working in a nursing home, or working as a caregiver in another capacity. These caregivers are responsible for providing 24-hour supervision and support to residents in their MFH and can care for up to 3 adults. In the MFH program, VA home-based primary care (HBPC) teams composed of physicians, registered nurses, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians, and psychologists, provide primary care for MFH veterans and oversee care in the caregiver’s home.

The goal of the VA HBPC program is to improve veterans’ access to medical care and shift LTC services from institutional to noninstitutional settings by providing in-home care for those who are too sick or disabled to go to a clinic for care. On average, veterans pay the MFH caregiver $2,500 out-of-pocket per month for their care.⁸ In 2016, there were 992 veterans residing in MFHs across the country.⁹ Since MFH program implementation expanded nationwide in 2008, more than 4,000 veterans have resided in MFHs in 45 states and territories.¹⁰

The VA is required to pay for nursing home care for veterans who have a qualifying VA service-connected disability or who meet a specific threshold of disability.¹¹ Currently, the VA is not authorized to pay for MFH care for veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for VA-paid nursing home care. Over the past decade, the VA has introduced and expanded several initiatives and programs to help veterans who require LTC remain in their homes and communities. These include but are not limited to the Veteran Directed Care program, the Choose Home Initiative, and the Caregiver Support Program.^12-14 Additionally, attempts have been made to pass legislation to authorize the VA to pay for MFH for veterans’ care whose military benefits include coverage for nursing home care.¹⁵ This legislation and VA initiatives are clear signs that the VA is committed to supporting programs such as the MFH program. Given this commitment, demand for the MFH program will likely increase.

Therefore, VA practitioners need to better identify which veterans are currently in the MFH program. While veterans are expected to need nursing home level care to qualify for MFH enrollment, little has been published about the physical and mental health care needs of veterans currently receiving MFH care. One previous study compared the demographics, diagnostic characteristics, and care utilization of MFH veterans with that of veterans receiving LTC in VA community living centers (CLCs), and found that veterans in MFHs had similar levels of frailty and comorbidity and had a higher mean age when compared with veterans in CLCs.¹⁶

Our study assessed a sample of veterans living in MFHs and describes these veterans’ clinical and functional characteristics. We used the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) to complete the assessments to allow comparisons with other populations residing in long-term care.^17,18 While MDS assessments are required for Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing home residents and for residents in VA CLCs, this study was the first attempt to perform in-home MDS data assessments in MFHs. This collection of descriptive clinical data is an important first step in providing VA practitioners with information about the characteristics of veterans currently cared for in MFHs and policymakers with data to think critically about which veterans are willing to pay for the MFH program.

Methods

This study was part of a larger research project assessing the impact of the MFH program on veterans’ outcomes and health care spending as well as factors influencing program growth.^{7,9,10,16,19-23} We report on the characteristics of veterans staying in MFHs, using data from the MDS, including a clinical assessment of patients’ cognitive, function, and health care–related needs, collected from participants recruited for this study.

Five research nurses were trained to administer the MDS assessment to veterans in MFHs. Data were collected between April 2014 and December 2015 from veterans at MFH sites associated with 4 urban VA medical centers in 4 different Veterans Integrated Service Networks (58 total homes). While the VA medical centers (VAMCs)were urban, many of the MFHs were in rural areas, given that MFHs can be up to 50 miles from the associated VAMC. We selected MFH sites for this study based on MFH program veteran census. Specifically, we identified MFH sites with high veteran enrollment to ensure we would have a sufficiently large sample for participant recruitment.

Veterans who had resided in an MFH for at least 90 days were eligible to participate. Of the 155 veterans mailed a letter of invitation to participate, 92 (59%) completed the in-home MDS assessment. Reasons for not participating included: 13 veterans died prior to data collection, 18 veterans declined to participate, 18 family members or legal guardians of cognitively impaired veterans did not want the veteran to participate, and 14 veterans left the MFH program or were hospitalized at the time of data collection.

Family members and legal guardians who declined participation on behalf of a veteran reported that they felt the veteran was too frail to participate or that participating would be an added burden on the veteran. Based on the census of veterans residing in all MFHs nationally in November 2015 (N = 972), 9.5% of MFH veterans were included in this study.⁷This study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB #12–31), in addition to the local VA research and development review boards where MFH MDS assessments were collected.

Assessment Instrument and Variables

The MDS 3.0 assesses numerous aspects of clinical and functional status. Several resident-level characteristics from the MDS 3.0 were included in this study. The Cognitive Function Scale (CFS) was used to categorize cognitive function. The CFS is a categorical variable that is created from MDS 3.0 data. The CFS integrates self- and staff-reported data to classify individuals as cognitively intact, mildly impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired based on respondents’ Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment or staff-reported cognitive function collected as part of the MDS 3.0.²⁴ We explored depression by calculating a mean summary severity score for all respondents from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item interview (PHQ-9).²⁵ PHQ-9 summary scores range from 0 to 27, with mean scores of ≤ 4 indicating no or minimal depression, and higher scores corresponding to more severe depression as scores increase. For respondents who were unable to complete the PHQ-9, we calculated mean PHQ Observational Version (PHQ-9-OV) scores.

We included 2 variables to characterize behaviors: wandering frequency and presence and frequency of aggressive behaviors. We summarized aggressive behaviors using the Aggressive and Reactive Behavior Scale, which characterizes whether a resident has none, mild, moderate, or severe behavioral symptoms based on the presence and frequency of physical and verbal behaviors and resistance to care.^26,27 We included items that described pain, number of falls since admission or prior assessment, degree of urinary and bowel continence (always continent vs not always continent) and mobility device use to describe respondents’ health conditions and functional status. To characterize pain, we used veteran’s self-reported frequency and intensity of pain experienced in the prior 5 days and classified the experienced pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Finally, demographic characteristics included age and gender.

To determine functional status, we included measures of needing help to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS allows us to understand functional status ranging from ADLs lost early in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bathing, hygiene) to those lost in the middle (ie, walking, dressing, toileting, transferring) to those lost late in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bed mobility and eating).^28,29 To assess MFH veterans’ independence in mobility, we considered the veteran’s ability to walk without supervision or assistance in the hallway outside of their room, ability to move between their room and hallway, and ability to move throughout the house. Mobility includes use of an assistive device such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair if the veteran can use it without assistance. We summarized dependency in ADLs, using a combined score of dependence in bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on unit, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene that ranges from 0 (independent) to 28 (completely dependent).³⁰ Additionally, we created 3-category variables to indicate the degree of dependence in performing ADLs (independent, supervision or assistance, and completely dependent).

Finally, we included diagnoses identified as active to explore differences in neurologic, mood, psychiatric, and chronic disease morbidity. In the MDS 3.0 assessment, an active diagnosis is defined as a diagnosis documented by a licensed independent practitioner in the prior 60 days that has affected the resident or their care in the prior 7 days.

Analysis

We conducted statistical analyses using Stata MP version 15.1 (StataCorp). We summarized demographic characteristics, cognitive function scores, depression scores, pain status, behavioral symptoms, incidence of falls, degree of continence, functional status, and comorbidities, using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables.

Results

Of the 92 MFH veterans in our sample, 85% were male and 83% were aged ≥ 65 years (Table 1). Veterans had an average length of stay of 927 days at the time of MDS assessment. More than half (55%) of MFH veterans had cognitive impairment (ranging from mild to severe). The mean (SD) depression score was 3.3 (3.9), indicating minimal depression. For veterans who could not complete the depression questionnaire, the mean (SD) staff-assessed depression score was 5.9 (5.5), suggesting mild depression. Overall, 22% of the sample had aggressive behaviors but only 7 were noted to be severe. Few residents had caregiver-reported wandering. Self-reported pain intensity indicated that 45% of the sample had mild, moderate, or severe pain. While more than half the cohort had complete bowel continence (53%), only 36% had complete urinary continence. Use of mobility devices was common, with 56% of residents using a wheelchair, 42% using a walker, and 14% using a cane. One-fourth of veterans had fallen at least once since admission to the MFH.

Of the 11 ADLs assessed, the percentage of MFH veterans requiring assistance with early and mid-loss ADLs ranged from 63% for transferring to 84% for bathing (Table 2). Even for the late-loss ADL of eating, 57% of the MFH cohort required assistance. Overall, MFH veterans had an average ADL dependency score of 11.

Discussion

In this study, we describe the characteristics of veterans receiving LTC in a sample of MFHs. This is the first study to assess veteran health and function across a group of MFHs. To help provide context for the description of MFH residents, we compared demographic characteristics, cognitive impairment, depression, pain, behaviors, functional status, and morbidity of veterans in the MFH program to long-stay residents in community nursing homes (eAppendix 1-3 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0102). A comparison with this reference population suggests that these MFH and nursing home cohorts are similar in terms of age, wandering behavior, incidence of falls, and prevalence of neurologic, psychiatric, and chronic diseases. Compared with nursing home residents, veterans in the MFH cohort had slightly higher mood symptom scores, were more likely to display aggressive behavior, and were more likely to report experiencing moderate and severe pain.

Additionally, MFH veterans displayed a lower level of cognitive impairment, fewer functional impairments, measured by the ADL dependency score, and were less likely to be bowel or bladder incontinent. Despite an overall lower ADL dependency score, a similar proportion of MFH veterans and nursing home residents were totally dependent in performing 7 of 11 ADLs and a higher proportion of MFH veterans were completely dependent for toileting (22% long-stay nursing home vs 31% MFH). The only ADLs for which there was a higher proportion of long-stay nursing home residents who were totally dependent compared with MFH residents were walking in room (54% long-stay nursing home vs 38% MFH), walking in the corridor (57% long-stay nursing home vs 33% MFH), and locomotion off the unit (36% long-stay nursing home vs 22% MFH).

While the rates of total ADL dependence among veterans in MFHs suggest that MFHs are providing care to a subset of veterans with high levels of functional impairment and care needs, MFHs are also providing care to veterans who are more independent in performing ADLs and who resemble low-care nursing home residents. A low-care nursing home resident is broadly defined as an one who does not need assistance performing late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, transferring, toileting, and eating) and who does not have the Resource Utilization Group classification of special rehab or clinically complex.^31,32 Due to their overall higher functional capacity, low-care residents, even those with chronic medical care needs, may be more appropriately cared for in less intensive care settings than in nursing homes. About 5% to 30% of long-stay nursing home residents can be classified as low care.^31,33-37 Additionally, a majority of newly admitted nursing home patients report a preference for or support community discharge rather than long-stay nursing home care, suggesting that many nursing home residents have the potential and desire to transition to a community-based setting.³³

Based on the prevalence of veterans in our sample who are similar to low-care nursing home residents and the national focus on shifting LTC to community-based settings, MFHs may be an ideal setting for both low-care nursing home residents and those seeking community-based alternatives to traditional, institutionalized LTC. Additionally, given that we observed greater behavioral and pain needs and similar rates of comorbidities in MFH veterans relative to long-stay nursing home residents, our results indicate that MFHs also have the capacity to care for veterans with higher care needs who desire community-based LTC.

Previous research identified barriers to program MFH growth that may contribute to referral of veterans with fewer ADL dependencies compared with long-stay nursing home residents. A key barrier to MFH referral is that nursing home referral requires selection of a home, whereas MFH referral involves matching veterans with appropriate caregivers, which requires time to align the veteran’s needs with the right caregiver in the right home.⁷ Given the rigors of finding a match, VA staff who refer veterans may preferentially refer veterans with greater ADL impairments to nursing homes, assuming that higher levels of care needs will complicate the matching process and reserve MFH referral for only the highest functioning candidates.¹⁹ However, the ADL data presented here indicate that many MFH residents with significant levels of ADL dependence are living in MFHs. Meeting the care needs of those who have higher ADL dependencies is possible because MFH coordinators and HBPC providers deliver individual, ongoing education to MFH caregivers about caring for MFH veterans and provide available resources needed to safely care for MFH veterans across the spectrum of ADL dependency.⁷

Veterans with higher levels of functional dependence may also be referred to nursing homes rather than to MFHs because of payment issues. Independent of the VA, veterans or their families negotiate a contract with their caregiver to pay out-of-pocket for MFH caregiving as well as room and board. Particularly for veterans who have military benefits to cover nursing home care costs, the out-of-pocket payment for veterans with high degrees of functional dependence increase as needs increase. These out-of-pocket payments may serve as a barrier to MFH enrollment. The proposed Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act, which would allow the VA to pay for MFH care for eligible veterans may address this barrier.¹⁵

Another possible explanation for the higher rates of functional independence in the MFH cohort is that veterans with functional impairment are not being referred to MFHs. A previous study of the MFH program found that health care providers were often unaware of the program and as a result did not refer eligible veterans to this alternative LTC option.⁷ The changes proposed by the Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act may result in an increase in demand in MFH care and thus increase awareness of the program among VA physicians.¹⁵

Limitations

There are several potential limitations in this study. First, there are limits to the generalizability of the MFH sample given that the sample of veterans was not randomly selected and that weights were not applied to account for nonresponse bias. Second, charting requirements in MFHs are less intensive compared with nursing home tracking. While the training for research nurses on how to conduct MDS assessments in MFHs was designed to simulate the process in nursing homes, MDS data were likely impacted by differences in charting practices. In addition, MFH caregivers may report certain items, such as aggressive behaviors, more often because they observe MFH veterans round-the-clock compared with NH caregivers who work in shifts and have a lower caregiver to resident ratio. The current data suggest differences in prevalence of behavioral symptoms.

Future studies should examine whether this reflects differences in the populations served or differences in how MFH caregivers track and manage behavioral symptoms. Third, this study was conducted at only MFH sites associated with 4 VAMCs, thus our findings may not be generalizable to veterans in other areas. Finally, there may be differences in the veterans who agreed to participate in the study compared with those who declined to participate. For example, it is possible that the eligible MFH veterans who declined to participate in this study were more functionally impaired than those who did participate. More than one-third (39%) of the family members of cognitively impaired MFH veterans who did not participate cited concerns about the veteran’s frailty as a primary reason for declining to participate. Consequently, the high level of functional status among veterans included in this study compared to nursing home residents may be in part a result of selection bias from more ADL-impaired veterans declining to participate in the study.

Conclusions

Although the MFH program has provided LTC nationally to veterans for nearly 2 decades, this study is the first to administer in-home MDS assessments to veterans in MFHs, allowing for a detailed description of cognitive, functional, and behavioral characteristics of MFH residents. In this study, we found that veterans currently receiving care in MFHs have a wide range of care needs. Our findings indicate that MFHs are caring for some veterans with high functional impairment as well as those who are completely independent in performing ADLs.

Moreover, these results are a preliminary attempt to assist VA health care providers in determining which veterans can be cared for in an MFH such that they can make informed referrals to this alternative LTC setting. To improve the generalizability of these findings, future studies should collect MDS 3.0 assessments longitudinally from a representative sample of veterans in MFHs. Further research is needed to explore how VA providers make the decision to refer a veteran to an MFH compared to a nursing home. Additionally, the percentage of veterans in this study who reported experiencing pain may indicate the need to identify innovative, integrated pain management programs for home settings.

New models are needed for delivering long-term care (LTC) that are home-based, cost-effective, and appropriate for older adults with a range of care needs.^1,2 In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $7.4 billion on LTC, accounting for 13% of total VA health care spending. Overall, 71% of LTC spending in FY 2015 was allocated to institutional care.³ Beyond cost, 95% of older adults prefer to remain in community rather than institutional LTC settings, such as nursing homes.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic created additional concerns related to the spread of infectious disease, with > 37% of COVID-19 deaths in the United States occurring in nursing homes irrespective of facility quality.^5,6

One community-based LTC alternative developed within the VA is the Medical Foster Home (MFH) program. The MFH program is an adult foster care program in which veterans who are unable to live independently receive round-the-clock care in the home of a community-based caregiver.⁷ MFH caregivers usually have previous experience caring for family, working in a nursing home, or working as a caregiver in another capacity. These caregivers are responsible for providing 24-hour supervision and support to residents in their MFH and can care for up to 3 adults. In the MFH program, VA home-based primary care (HBPC) teams composed of physicians, registered nurses, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians, and psychologists, provide primary care for MFH veterans and oversee care in the caregiver’s home.

The goal of the VA HBPC program is to improve veterans’ access to medical care and shift LTC services from institutional to noninstitutional settings by providing in-home care for those who are too sick or disabled to go to a clinic for care. On average, veterans pay the MFH caregiver $2,500 out-of-pocket per month for their care.⁸ In 2016, there were 992 veterans residing in MFHs across the country.⁹ Since MFH program implementation expanded nationwide in 2008, more than 4,000 veterans have resided in MFHs in 45 states and territories.¹⁰

The VA is required to pay for nursing home care for veterans who have a qualifying VA service-connected disability or who meet a specific threshold of disability.¹¹ Currently, the VA is not authorized to pay for MFH care for veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for VA-paid nursing home care. Over the past decade, the VA has introduced and expanded several initiatives and programs to help veterans who require LTC remain in their homes and communities. These include but are not limited to the Veteran Directed Care program, the Choose Home Initiative, and the Caregiver Support Program.^12-14 Additionally, attempts have been made to pass legislation to authorize the VA to pay for MFH for veterans’ care whose military benefits include coverage for nursing home care.¹⁵ This legislation and VA initiatives are clear signs that the VA is committed to supporting programs such as the MFH program. Given this commitment, demand for the MFH program will likely increase.

Therefore, VA practitioners need to better identify which veterans are currently in the MFH program. While veterans are expected to need nursing home level care to qualify for MFH enrollment, little has been published about the physical and mental health care needs of veterans currently receiving MFH care. One previous study compared the demographics, diagnostic characteristics, and care utilization of MFH veterans with that of veterans receiving LTC in VA community living centers (CLCs), and found that veterans in MFHs had similar levels of frailty and comorbidity and had a higher mean age when compared with veterans in CLCs.¹⁶

Our study assessed a sample of veterans living in MFHs and describes these veterans’ clinical and functional characteristics. We used the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) to complete the assessments to allow comparisons with other populations residing in long-term care.^17,18 While MDS assessments are required for Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing home residents and for residents in VA CLCs, this study was the first attempt to perform in-home MDS data assessments in MFHs. This collection of descriptive clinical data is an important first step in providing VA practitioners with information about the characteristics of veterans currently cared for in MFHs and policymakers with data to think critically about which veterans are willing to pay for the MFH program.

Methods

This study was part of a larger research project assessing the impact of the MFH program on veterans’ outcomes and health care spending as well as factors influencing program growth.^{7,9,10,16,19-23} We report on the characteristics of veterans staying in MFHs, using data from the MDS, including a clinical assessment of patients’ cognitive, function, and health care–related needs, collected from participants recruited for this study.

Five research nurses were trained to administer the MDS assessment to veterans in MFHs. Data were collected between April 2014 and December 2015 from veterans at MFH sites associated with 4 urban VA medical centers in 4 different Veterans Integrated Service Networks (58 total homes). While the VA medical centers (VAMCs)were urban, many of the MFHs were in rural areas, given that MFHs can be up to 50 miles from the associated VAMC. We selected MFH sites for this study based on MFH program veteran census. Specifically, we identified MFH sites with high veteran enrollment to ensure we would have a sufficiently large sample for participant recruitment.

Veterans who had resided in an MFH for at least 90 days were eligible to participate. Of the 155 veterans mailed a letter of invitation to participate, 92 (59%) completed the in-home MDS assessment. Reasons for not participating included: 13 veterans died prior to data collection, 18 veterans declined to participate, 18 family members or legal guardians of cognitively impaired veterans did not want the veteran to participate, and 14 veterans left the MFH program or were hospitalized at the time of data collection.

Family members and legal guardians who declined participation on behalf of a veteran reported that they felt the veteran was too frail to participate or that participating would be an added burden on the veteran. Based on the census of veterans residing in all MFHs nationally in November 2015 (N = 972), 9.5% of MFH veterans were included in this study.⁷This study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB #12–31), in addition to the local VA research and development review boards where MFH MDS assessments were collected.

Assessment Instrument and Variables

The MDS 3.0 assesses numerous aspects of clinical and functional status. Several resident-level characteristics from the MDS 3.0 were included in this study. The Cognitive Function Scale (CFS) was used to categorize cognitive function. The CFS is a categorical variable that is created from MDS 3.0 data. The CFS integrates self- and staff-reported data to classify individuals as cognitively intact, mildly impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired based on respondents’ Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment or staff-reported cognitive function collected as part of the MDS 3.0.²⁴ We explored depression by calculating a mean summary severity score for all respondents from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item interview (PHQ-9).²⁵ PHQ-9 summary scores range from 0 to 27, with mean scores of ≤ 4 indicating no or minimal depression, and higher scores corresponding to more severe depression as scores increase. For respondents who were unable to complete the PHQ-9, we calculated mean PHQ Observational Version (PHQ-9-OV) scores.

We included 2 variables to characterize behaviors: wandering frequency and presence and frequency of aggressive behaviors. We summarized aggressive behaviors using the Aggressive and Reactive Behavior Scale, which characterizes whether a resident has none, mild, moderate, or severe behavioral symptoms based on the presence and frequency of physical and verbal behaviors and resistance to care.^26,27 We included items that described pain, number of falls since admission or prior assessment, degree of urinary and bowel continence (always continent vs not always continent) and mobility device use to describe respondents’ health conditions and functional status. To characterize pain, we used veteran’s self-reported frequency and intensity of pain experienced in the prior 5 days and classified the experienced pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Finally, demographic characteristics included age and gender.

To determine functional status, we included measures of needing help to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS allows us to understand functional status ranging from ADLs lost early in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bathing, hygiene) to those lost in the middle (ie, walking, dressing, toileting, transferring) to those lost late in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bed mobility and eating).^28,29 To assess MFH veterans’ independence in mobility, we considered the veteran’s ability to walk without supervision or assistance in the hallway outside of their room, ability to move between their room and hallway, and ability to move throughout the house. Mobility includes use of an assistive device such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair if the veteran can use it without assistance. We summarized dependency in ADLs, using a combined score of dependence in bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on unit, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene that ranges from 0 (independent) to 28 (completely dependent).³⁰ Additionally, we created 3-category variables to indicate the degree of dependence in performing ADLs (independent, supervision or assistance, and completely dependent).

Finally, we included diagnoses identified as active to explore differences in neurologic, mood, psychiatric, and chronic disease morbidity. In the MDS 3.0 assessment, an active diagnosis is defined as a diagnosis documented by a licensed independent practitioner in the prior 60 days that has affected the resident or their care in the prior 7 days.

Analysis

We conducted statistical analyses using Stata MP version 15.1 (StataCorp). We summarized demographic characteristics, cognitive function scores, depression scores, pain status, behavioral symptoms, incidence of falls, degree of continence, functional status, and comorbidities, using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables.

Results

Of the 92 MFH veterans in our sample, 85% were male and 83% were aged ≥ 65 years (Table 1). Veterans had an average length of stay of 927 days at the time of MDS assessment. More than half (55%) of MFH veterans had cognitive impairment (ranging from mild to severe). The mean (SD) depression score was 3.3 (3.9), indicating minimal depression. For veterans who could not complete the depression questionnaire, the mean (SD) staff-assessed depression score was 5.9 (5.5), suggesting mild depression. Overall, 22% of the sample had aggressive behaviors but only 7 were noted to be severe. Few residents had caregiver-reported wandering. Self-reported pain intensity indicated that 45% of the sample had mild, moderate, or severe pain. While more than half the cohort had complete bowel continence (53%), only 36% had complete urinary continence. Use of mobility devices was common, with 56% of residents using a wheelchair, 42% using a walker, and 14% using a cane. One-fourth of veterans had fallen at least once since admission to the MFH.

Of the 11 ADLs assessed, the percentage of MFH veterans requiring assistance with early and mid-loss ADLs ranged from 63% for transferring to 84% for bathing (Table 2). Even for the late-loss ADL of eating, 57% of the MFH cohort required assistance. Overall, MFH veterans had an average ADL dependency score of 11.

Discussion

In this study, we describe the characteristics of veterans receiving LTC in a sample of MFHs. This is the first study to assess veteran health and function across a group of MFHs. To help provide context for the description of MFH residents, we compared demographic characteristics, cognitive impairment, depression, pain, behaviors, functional status, and morbidity of veterans in the MFH program to long-stay residents in community nursing homes (eAppendix 1-3 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0102). A comparison with this reference population suggests that these MFH and nursing home cohorts are similar in terms of age, wandering behavior, incidence of falls, and prevalence of neurologic, psychiatric, and chronic diseases. Compared with nursing home residents, veterans in the MFH cohort had slightly higher mood symptom scores, were more likely to display aggressive behavior, and were more likely to report experiencing moderate and severe pain.

Additionally, MFH veterans displayed a lower level of cognitive impairment, fewer functional impairments, measured by the ADL dependency score, and were less likely to be bowel or bladder incontinent. Despite an overall lower ADL dependency score, a similar proportion of MFH veterans and nursing home residents were totally dependent in performing 7 of 11 ADLs and a higher proportion of MFH veterans were completely dependent for toileting (22% long-stay nursing home vs 31% MFH). The only ADLs for which there was a higher proportion of long-stay nursing home residents who were totally dependent compared with MFH residents were walking in room (54% long-stay nursing home vs 38% MFH), walking in the corridor (57% long-stay nursing home vs 33% MFH), and locomotion off the unit (36% long-stay nursing home vs 22% MFH).

While the rates of total ADL dependence among veterans in MFHs suggest that MFHs are providing care to a subset of veterans with high levels of functional impairment and care needs, MFHs are also providing care to veterans who are more independent in performing ADLs and who resemble low-care nursing home residents. A low-care nursing home resident is broadly defined as an one who does not need assistance performing late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, transferring, toileting, and eating) and who does not have the Resource Utilization Group classification of special rehab or clinically complex.^31,32 Due to their overall higher functional capacity, low-care residents, even those with chronic medical care needs, may be more appropriately cared for in less intensive care settings than in nursing homes. About 5% to 30% of long-stay nursing home residents can be classified as low care.^31,33-37 Additionally, a majority of newly admitted nursing home patients report a preference for or support community discharge rather than long-stay nursing home care, suggesting that many nursing home residents have the potential and desire to transition to a community-based setting.³³

Based on the prevalence of veterans in our sample who are similar to low-care nursing home residents and the national focus on shifting LTC to community-based settings, MFHs may be an ideal setting for both low-care nursing home residents and those seeking community-based alternatives to traditional, institutionalized LTC. Additionally, given that we observed greater behavioral and pain needs and similar rates of comorbidities in MFH veterans relative to long-stay nursing home residents, our results indicate that MFHs also have the capacity to care for veterans with higher care needs who desire community-based LTC.

Previous research identified barriers to program MFH growth that may contribute to referral of veterans with fewer ADL dependencies compared with long-stay nursing home residents. A key barrier to MFH referral is that nursing home referral requires selection of a home, whereas MFH referral involves matching veterans with appropriate caregivers, which requires time to align the veteran’s needs with the right caregiver in the right home.⁷ Given the rigors of finding a match, VA staff who refer veterans may preferentially refer veterans with greater ADL impairments to nursing homes, assuming that higher levels of care needs will complicate the matching process and reserve MFH referral for only the highest functioning candidates.¹⁹ However, the ADL data presented here indicate that many MFH residents with significant levels of ADL dependence are living in MFHs. Meeting the care needs of those who have higher ADL dependencies is possible because MFH coordinators and HBPC providers deliver individual, ongoing education to MFH caregivers about caring for MFH veterans and provide available resources needed to safely care for MFH veterans across the spectrum of ADL dependency.⁷

Veterans with higher levels of functional dependence may also be referred to nursing homes rather than to MFHs because of payment issues. Independent of the VA, veterans or their families negotiate a contract with their caregiver to pay out-of-pocket for MFH caregiving as well as room and board. Particularly for veterans who have military benefits to cover nursing home care costs, the out-of-pocket payment for veterans with high degrees of functional dependence increase as needs increase. These out-of-pocket payments may serve as a barrier to MFH enrollment. The proposed Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act, which would allow the VA to pay for MFH care for eligible veterans may address this barrier.¹⁵

Another possible explanation for the higher rates of functional independence in the MFH cohort is that veterans with functional impairment are not being referred to MFHs. A previous study of the MFH program found that health care providers were often unaware of the program and as a result did not refer eligible veterans to this alternative LTC option.⁷ The changes proposed by the Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act may result in an increase in demand in MFH care and thus increase awareness of the program among VA physicians.¹⁵

Limitations

There are several potential limitations in this study. First, there are limits to the generalizability of the MFH sample given that the sample of veterans was not randomly selected and that weights were not applied to account for nonresponse bias. Second, charting requirements in MFHs are less intensive compared with nursing home tracking. While the training for research nurses on how to conduct MDS assessments in MFHs was designed to simulate the process in nursing homes, MDS data were likely impacted by differences in charting practices. In addition, MFH caregivers may report certain items, such as aggressive behaviors, more often because they observe MFH veterans round-the-clock compared with NH caregivers who work in shifts and have a lower caregiver to resident ratio. The current data suggest differences in prevalence of behavioral symptoms.

Future studies should examine whether this reflects differences in the populations served or differences in how MFH caregivers track and manage behavioral symptoms. Third, this study was conducted at only MFH sites associated with 4 VAMCs, thus our findings may not be generalizable to veterans in other areas. Finally, there may be differences in the veterans who agreed to participate in the study compared with those who declined to participate. For example, it is possible that the eligible MFH veterans who declined to participate in this study were more functionally impaired than those who did participate. More than one-third (39%) of the family members of cognitively impaired MFH veterans who did not participate cited concerns about the veteran’s frailty as a primary reason for declining to participate. Consequently, the high level of functional status among veterans included in this study compared to nursing home residents may be in part a result of selection bias from more ADL-impaired veterans declining to participate in the study.

Conclusions

Although the MFH program has provided LTC nationally to veterans for nearly 2 decades, this study is the first to administer in-home MDS assessments to veterans in MFHs, allowing for a detailed description of cognitive, functional, and behavioral characteristics of MFH residents. In this study, we found that veterans currently receiving care in MFHs have a wide range of care needs. Our findings indicate that MFHs are caring for some veterans with high functional impairment as well as those who are completely independent in performing ADLs.

Moreover, these results are a preliminary attempt to assist VA health care providers in determining which veterans can be cared for in an MFH such that they can make informed referrals to this alternative LTC setting. To improve the generalizability of these findings, future studies should collect MDS 3.0 assessments longitudinally from a representative sample of veterans in MFHs. Further research is needed to explore how VA providers make the decision to refer a veteran to an MFH compared to a nursing home. Additionally, the percentage of veterans in this study who reported experiencing pain may indicate the need to identify innovative, integrated pain management programs for home settings.

Levels of insulinlike factor 3 (INSL3) drop noticeably in men who have abused anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS), even well after stoppage. The results suggest that the effects of AAS use on testosterone-producing Leydig cells may be long-lasting, as some clinicians have suspected. Although there is some variation of INSL3 levels among AAS users, the metric is more accurate than testosterone levels and could be a key element of future diagnostic tests.

Those are the conclusions of a new study, led by Jon Jarløv Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen*, published March 9, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  

Results mirror clinical experience  

The drop in levels, both among current and past users, is in keeping with clinical experience of endocrinologists, according to Channa Jayasena, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College London. He suspects lasting damage in former and current users who come to him when they discover their sperm count is low. "How long that damage lasts is another matter," Dr. Jayasena, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.   

In search of a reliable measure  

Low testosterone levels have been shown to be associated with AAS use in some studies, but not in others. That inconsistency led the researchers in search of a more reliable measure. "Serum testosterone is not a stable marker but can fluctuate considerably within minutes to hours, whereas serum insulinlike factor 3 [levels] do not," said Dr. Rasmussen.  
INSL3 appears to be involved in bone metabolism regulation as well as spermatogenesis.  

Dr. Rasmussen agreed that INSL3 levels could be clinically useful for tracking Leydig cell function, especially in combination with other hormone markers like serum testosterone and gonadotropins. The group is now considering a clinical trial for treatment of hypogonadal men following illicit use of anabolic steroids, which will include INSL3 serum levels as a planned endpoint.  

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of men aged 18-50 years who had participated in recreational strength training. Cohort 1 included 37 AAS users, 33 former users, and 30 never users. Cohort 2 included 9 current users, 9 former users, and 14 never users. They assigned participant AAS use status based on self-reporting, along with measurement of biomedical parameters including gonadotropins, sexual hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and hematocrit.  
Compared with never users' median value of 0.59 mcg/L, INSL3 serum levels were lower among current AAS (median, 0.04 mcg/L; P < .001) and former AAS (0.39 mcg/L; P = .005) users. A linear multivariate regression that adjusted for luteinizing hormone, SHBG, age, body-fat percentage, smoking status, use of other illicit drugs found lower levels among former users, compared with never users (mean difference, -0.16 mcg/L; P = .011). 

An analysis of elapsed duration since AAS cessation found longer duration of AAS use was associated with reduced INSL3 levels (mean difference, -0.08; P = .022). 

Although serum inhibin B levels reached the levels of never users after about 21 months, and luteinizing hormone levels recovered in about 12 months, neither serum testosterone nor INSL3 levels recovered in former users. 

The study authors received funding from Anti Doping Denmark. Dr. Jayasena has no relevant financial disclosures. 

*Dr. Rasmussen's affiliation has been corrected.

Levels of insulinlike factor 3 (INSL3) drop noticeably in men who have abused anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS), even well after stoppage. The results suggest that the effects of AAS use on testosterone-producing Leydig cells may be long-lasting, as some clinicians have suspected. Although there is some variation of INSL3 levels among AAS users, the metric is more accurate than testosterone levels and could be a key element of future diagnostic tests.

Those are the conclusions of a new study, led by Jon Jarløv Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen*, published March 9, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  

Results mirror clinical experience  

The drop in levels, both among current and past users, is in keeping with clinical experience of endocrinologists, according to Channa Jayasena, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College London. He suspects lasting damage in former and current users who come to him when they discover their sperm count is low. "How long that damage lasts is another matter," Dr. Jayasena, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.   

In search of a reliable measure  

Low testosterone levels have been shown to be associated with AAS use in some studies, but not in others. That inconsistency led the researchers in search of a more reliable measure. "Serum testosterone is not a stable marker but can fluctuate considerably within minutes to hours, whereas serum insulinlike factor 3 [levels] do not," said Dr. Rasmussen.  
INSL3 appears to be involved in bone metabolism regulation as well as spermatogenesis.  

Dr. Rasmussen agreed that INSL3 levels could be clinically useful for tracking Leydig cell function, especially in combination with other hormone markers like serum testosterone and gonadotropins. The group is now considering a clinical trial for treatment of hypogonadal men following illicit use of anabolic steroids, which will include INSL3 serum levels as a planned endpoint.  

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of men aged 18-50 years who had participated in recreational strength training. Cohort 1 included 37 AAS users, 33 former users, and 30 never users. Cohort 2 included 9 current users, 9 former users, and 14 never users. They assigned participant AAS use status based on self-reporting, along with measurement of biomedical parameters including gonadotropins, sexual hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and hematocrit.  
Compared with never users' median value of 0.59 mcg/L, INSL3 serum levels were lower among current AAS (median, 0.04 mcg/L; P < .001) and former AAS (0.39 mcg/L; P = .005) users. A linear multivariate regression that adjusted for luteinizing hormone, SHBG, age, body-fat percentage, smoking status, use of other illicit drugs found lower levels among former users, compared with never users (mean difference, -0.16 mcg/L; P = .011). 

An analysis of elapsed duration since AAS cessation found longer duration of AAS use was associated with reduced INSL3 levels (mean difference, -0.08; P = .022). 

Although serum inhibin B levels reached the levels of never users after about 21 months, and luteinizing hormone levels recovered in about 12 months, neither serum testosterone nor INSL3 levels recovered in former users. 

The study authors received funding from Anti Doping Denmark. Dr. Jayasena has no relevant financial disclosures. 

*Dr. Rasmussen's affiliation has been corrected.

Levels of insulinlike factor 3 (INSL3) drop noticeably in men who have abused anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS), even well after stoppage. The results suggest that the effects of AAS use on testosterone-producing Leydig cells may be long-lasting, as some clinicians have suspected. Although there is some variation of INSL3 levels among AAS users, the metric is more accurate than testosterone levels and could be a key element of future diagnostic tests.

Those are the conclusions of a new study, led by Jon Jarløv Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen*, published March 9, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  

Results mirror clinical experience  

The drop in levels, both among current and past users, is in keeping with clinical experience of endocrinologists, according to Channa Jayasena, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College London. He suspects lasting damage in former and current users who come to him when they discover their sperm count is low. "How long that damage lasts is another matter," Dr. Jayasena, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.   

In search of a reliable measure  

Low testosterone levels have been shown to be associated with AAS use in some studies, but not in others. That inconsistency led the researchers in search of a more reliable measure. "Serum testosterone is not a stable marker but can fluctuate considerably within minutes to hours, whereas serum insulinlike factor 3 [levels] do not," said Dr. Rasmussen.  
INSL3 appears to be involved in bone metabolism regulation as well as spermatogenesis.  

Dr. Rasmussen agreed that INSL3 levels could be clinically useful for tracking Leydig cell function, especially in combination with other hormone markers like serum testosterone and gonadotropins. The group is now considering a clinical trial for treatment of hypogonadal men following illicit use of anabolic steroids, which will include INSL3 serum levels as a planned endpoint.  

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of men aged 18-50 years who had participated in recreational strength training. Cohort 1 included 37 AAS users, 33 former users, and 30 never users. Cohort 2 included 9 current users, 9 former users, and 14 never users. They assigned participant AAS use status based on self-reporting, along with measurement of biomedical parameters including gonadotropins, sexual hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and hematocrit.  
Compared with never users' median value of 0.59 mcg/L, INSL3 serum levels were lower among current AAS (median, 0.04 mcg/L; P < .001) and former AAS (0.39 mcg/L; P = .005) users. A linear multivariate regression that adjusted for luteinizing hormone, SHBG, age, body-fat percentage, smoking status, use of other illicit drugs found lower levels among former users, compared with never users (mean difference, -0.16 mcg/L; P = .011). 

An analysis of elapsed duration since AAS cessation found longer duration of AAS use was associated with reduced INSL3 levels (mean difference, -0.08; P = .022). 

Although serum inhibin B levels reached the levels of never users after about 21 months, and luteinizing hormone levels recovered in about 12 months, neither serum testosterone nor INSL3 levels recovered in former users. 

The study authors received funding from Anti Doping Denmark. Dr. Jayasena has no relevant financial disclosures. 

*Dr. Rasmussen's affiliation has been corrected.

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Diagnosis of bleeding disorders in girls and women can lag behind diagnosis in boys and men by more than a decade, meaning needless delays in treatment and poor quality of life for many with hemophilia or related conditions.

“There is increasing awareness about issues faced by women and girls with inherited bleeding disorders, but disparities still exist both in both access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Roseline D’Oiron, MD, from Hôpital Bicêtre in Paris.

“Diagnosis, when it is made, is often made late, particularly in women. Indeed, a recent study from the European Hemophilia Consortium including more than 700 women with bleeding disorders showed that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years old,” she said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

She said that delayed diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls may be caused by a lack of knowledge by patients, families, and general practitioners about family history of bleeding disorders, abnormal bleeding events, and heavy menstrual bleeding. In addition, despite the frequency and severity of heavy bleeding events, patients, their families, and caregivers may underestimate the effect on the patient’s quality of life.
 

Disparities documented

Dr. D’Oiron pointed to several studies showing clear sex-based disparities in time to diagnosis. For example, a study published in Haemophilia showed that in 22 girls with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, the diagnosis of severe hemophilia was delayed by a median of 6.5 months compared with the diagnosis in boys, and a diagnosis of moderate hemophilia in girls was delayed by a median of 39 months.

In a second, single-center study comparing 44 women and girls with mild hemophilia (factor VIII or factor XI levels from 5 to 50 IU/dL) with 77 men and boys with mild hemophilia, the mean age at diagnosis was 31.63 years versus 19.18 years, respectively – a delay of 12.45 years.

A third study comparing 442 girls/women and 442 boys/men with mild hemophilia in France showed a difference of 6.07 years in diagnosis: the median age for girls/women at diagnosis was 16.91 years versus10.84 years for boys/men.
 

Why it matters

Dr. D’Oiron described the case of a patient named Clare, who first experienced, at age 8, 12 hours of bleeding following a dental procedure. At age 12.5, she began having heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss school for a few days each month, to be feel tired, and have poor-quality sleep.

Despite repeated bleeding episodes, severe anemia, and iron deficiency, her hemophilia was not suspected until after her 16th birthday, and a definitive diagnosis of hemophilia in both Clare and her mother was finally made when Clare was past 17, when a nonsense variant factor in F8, the gene encoding for factor VIII, was detected.

“For Clare, it took more the 8 years after the first bleeding symptoms, and nearly 4 years after presenting with heavy menstrual bleeding to recognize that she had a bleeding problem,” she said.

In total, Clare had about 450 days of heavy menstrual bleeding, causing her to miss an estimated 140 days of school because of the delayed diagnosis and treatment.

“In my view, this is the main argument why it is urgent for these patients to achieve diagnosis early: this is to reduce the duration [of] a very poor quality of life,” Dr. D’Oiron said.
 

Barriers to diagnosis

Patients and families have reported difficulty distinguishing normal bleeding from abnormal symptoms, and girls may be reluctant to discuss their symptoms with their family or peers. In addition, primary care practitioners may not recognize the severity of the symptoms and therefore may not refer patients to hematologists for further workup.

These findings emphasize the need for improved tools to help patients differentiate between normal and abnormal bleeding, using symptom recognition–based language tools that can lead to early testing and application of accurate diagnostic tools, she said.

Standardization of definitions can help to improve screening and diagnosis, Dr. D’Oiron said, pointing to a recent study in Blood Advances proposing definitions for future research in von Willebrand disease.

For example, the authors of that study proposed a definition of heavy menstrual bleeding to include any of the following:

• Bleeding lasting 8 or more days
• Bleeding that consistently soaks through one or more sanitary protections every 2 hours on multiple days
• Requires use of more than one sanitary protection item at a time
• Requires changing sanitary protection during the night
• Is associated with repeat passing of blood clots
• Has a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score greater than 100.
•  

Problem and solutions

Answering the question posed in the title of her talk, Dr. D’Oiron said: “Yes, we do have a problem with the diagnosis of bleeding disorders in women and girls, but we also have solutions.”

The solutions include family and patient outreach efforts; communication to improve awareness; inclusion of general practitioners in the circle of care; and early screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

A bleeding disorders specialist who was not involved in the study said that Dr. D’Oiron’s report closely reflects what she sees in the clinic.

“I do pediatrics, and usually what happens is that I see a teenager with heavy menstrual bleeding and we take her history, and we find out that Mom and multiple female family members have had horrible menstrual bleeding, possibly many of whom have had hysterectomies for it, and then diagnosing the parents and other family members after diagnosing the girl that we’re seeing” said Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“It is unfortunately a very real thing,” she added.

Reasons for the delay likely include lack of awareness of bleeding disorders.

“If you present to a hematologist, we think about bleeding disorders, but if you present to a primary care physician, they don’t always have that on their radar,” she said.

Additionally, a girl from a family with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding may just assume that what she is experiencing is “normal,” despite the serious affect it has on her quality of life, Dr. Flood said.

Dr. D’Oiron’s research is supported by her institution, the French Hemophilia Association, FranceCoag and Mhemon, the European Hemophilia Consortium, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. She reported advisory board or invited speaker activities for multiple companies. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Scenario

A GI faculty member is approached by two medical students who are planning careers in gastroenterology. They are interested in research projects and are very willing to dedicate the necessary time and energy. The faculty member is impressed by their desire and finds themselves recalling their own unsuccessful medical school search for a research mentor. Inspired by their enthusiasm and a desire to “give back,” the faculty member agrees to mentor them and helps them find suitable projects. Primarily because of the students’ hard work and fueled by their desire to produce results that will help their residency applications, the work progresses rapidly. Both students have separate abstracts accepted at a national meeting.

When COVID-19 hits, the faculty member is asked by their department to take on additional administrative and clinical work. They feel they cannot say no. Soon the faculty member finds it difficult to manage these new responsibilities on top of their many research projects, numerous clinical obligations, and additional pressures outside of work. They find they have no time for mentoring or even adequate sleep. Facing burnout, the faculty member is uncertain what to do for these hard-working and very gifted students. How would you recommend they manage their mentoring obligations?
 

Discussion

Mentorship is a cornerstone of academic medicine. In fact, it has been shown that academic clinicians who serve as mentors publish more papers, get more grants, are promoted faster, and are more likely to stay at their academic institutions with greater career satisfaction.¹ However, not every mentor-mentee relationship is mutually beneficial. Usually, it’s the mentees that disproportionately suffer the consequences of a suboptimal relationship.²

Mentorship malpractice occurs when mentors’ behavior crosses a threshold that places the mentees’ success at risk.^1,2 While the case above highlights a specific scenario where multiple issues are unfolding, the ability to recognize, address, and most importantly prevent mentorship malpractice ultimately benefits both mentees and mentors.

Understanding the various types of mentorship malpractice is helpful for prevention and course correction. As described by Chopra and colleagues, there are multiple types of passive and active mentorship malpractice.² The passive forms are characterized by a lack of face-to-face meeting time with mentees and/or a lack of advocacy on the mentees’ behalf. Meanwhile, the active forms occur when the mentor exhibits self-serving behaviors. These can include listing themselves as first author on a mentee’s project or discouraging a mentee from working with other mentors. Mentors must be able to self-check, seek feedback from mentees, and encourage mentees to further their professional networks beyond the boundaries of what the mentor alone can offer. Doing so helps create new opportunities and helps ensure a mutually beneficial relationship.

A great initial step to prevent passive and active mentorship malpractice is to leverage the benefits of team mentorship.^2,3 At its core, team mentorship capitalizes on the collective contributions of multiple mentors. Doing so not only provides security during uncertain times, but also allows for a diversity of perspectives, distribution of workload among mentors, and additional support for mentees.^3,4 Team mentorship it is particularly important during this current global health crisis, and such an approach from the outset could have significantly improved the scenario above.

For the above scenario, likely a transition in mentorship would be needed. Such transitions, whether short term or long term, require transparency, honesty, and willingness to engage in difficult conversations with mentees. Whether the mentor in the above case engages another faculty to take on the mentees or chooses to find a colleague who will agree to take on other competing demands, it will require time, effort, and energy – all of which are in short supply. When team mentorship is established from the outset, such transitions of mentorship can occur seamlessly and with more ease for all.

Additional considerations for successful mentoring of medical students or early-career physicians include understanding generational differences between the mentor and their mentees. As outlined by Waljee and colleagues, the next generation of trainees and physicians may act in ways that deviate from the norms of academic medicine’s tradition. As a mentor, it is imperative to understand these actions are not intended to disrupt the traditions and norms of health systems.⁵ For example, the use of technology during rounds can often be misconstrued as disrespectful. However, the underlying intent in many cases is to answer a question or access a helpful reference.

Seeing behavior and actions from the perspective of the mentee is one of the many ways to support and sustain successful mentoring relationships. A mindful approach benefits both mentees and mentors; this includes reflecting on the underlying motives for mentorship and cultivating gratitude for the relationships formed.⁶ While these steps may seem trivial, gratitude promotes happiness, trust, motivation, and respect. It can be felt by others, including mentees.

As mentors continue to shape the future, they have an ethical obligation to care for themselves, in addition to their mentees. In addition to avoiding mentorship malpractice, engaging in team mentorship, and incorporating mindful mentoring, an emphasis on self-care is critical.⁷ Taking time to recharge is essential. It allows one to be fully present, while also setting an example for the mentee. Explicitly addressing self-care for both mentor and mentee is a part of mindful mentorship, with benefits for all.⁶
 

Three key points:

1. Awareness of mentorship malpractice

2. Importance of team mentorship

3. Benefits of mindful mentorship

Mr. Rodoni is with the University of Michigan Medical School and Stephen M. Ross School of Business, Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Fessel is a professor of radiology in the department of radiology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor. They reported having no disclosures relevant to this article.

References:

1. Chopra V et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Feb;178:175-6.

2. Chopra V et al. JAMA. 2016 Apr 12;315:1453-4.

3. Chopra V et al. The Mentoring Guide: Helping Mentors & Mentees Succeed. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, 2019.

4. Rodoni BM et al. Annals of Surgery. 2020 Aug;272(2):e151-2.

5. Waljee JF et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 17;319(15):1547-8.

6. Chopra V and Saint S. Healthc (Amst). 2020 Mar;8(1):100390.

7. Fessell D et al. “Mentoring During a Crisis.” Harvard Business Review. 2020 Oct 29.

Scenario

A GI faculty member is approached by two medical students who are planning careers in gastroenterology. They are interested in research projects and are very willing to dedicate the necessary time and energy. The faculty member is impressed by their desire and finds themselves recalling their own unsuccessful medical school search for a research mentor. Inspired by their enthusiasm and a desire to “give back,” the faculty member agrees to mentor them and helps them find suitable projects. Primarily because of the students’ hard work and fueled by their desire to produce results that will help their residency applications, the work progresses rapidly. Both students have separate abstracts accepted at a national meeting.

When COVID-19 hits, the faculty member is asked by their department to take on additional administrative and clinical work. They feel they cannot say no. Soon the faculty member finds it difficult to manage these new responsibilities on top of their many research projects, numerous clinical obligations, and additional pressures outside of work. They find they have no time for mentoring or even adequate sleep. Facing burnout, the faculty member is uncertain what to do for these hard-working and very gifted students. How would you recommend they manage their mentoring obligations?
 

Discussion

Mentorship is a cornerstone of academic medicine. In fact, it has been shown that academic clinicians who serve as mentors publish more papers, get more grants, are promoted faster, and are more likely to stay at their academic institutions with greater career satisfaction.¹ However, not every mentor-mentee relationship is mutually beneficial. Usually, it’s the mentees that disproportionately suffer the consequences of a suboptimal relationship.²

Mentorship malpractice occurs when mentors’ behavior crosses a threshold that places the mentees’ success at risk.^1,2 While the case above highlights a specific scenario where multiple issues are unfolding, the ability to recognize, address, and most importantly prevent mentorship malpractice ultimately benefits both mentees and mentors.

Understanding the various types of mentorship malpractice is helpful for prevention and course correction. As described by Chopra and colleagues, there are multiple types of passive and active mentorship malpractice.² The passive forms are characterized by a lack of face-to-face meeting time with mentees and/or a lack of advocacy on the mentees’ behalf. Meanwhile, the active forms occur when the mentor exhibits self-serving behaviors. These can include listing themselves as first author on a mentee’s project or discouraging a mentee from working with other mentors. Mentors must be able to self-check, seek feedback from mentees, and encourage mentees to further their professional networks beyond the boundaries of what the mentor alone can offer. Doing so helps create new opportunities and helps ensure a mutually beneficial relationship.

A great initial step to prevent passive and active mentorship malpractice is to leverage the benefits of team mentorship.^2,3 At its core, team mentorship capitalizes on the collective contributions of multiple mentors. Doing so not only provides security during uncertain times, but also allows for a diversity of perspectives, distribution of workload among mentors, and additional support for mentees.^3,4 Team mentorship it is particularly important during this current global health crisis, and such an approach from the outset could have significantly improved the scenario above.

For the above scenario, likely a transition in mentorship would be needed. Such transitions, whether short term or long term, require transparency, honesty, and willingness to engage in difficult conversations with mentees. Whether the mentor in the above case engages another faculty to take on the mentees or chooses to find a colleague who will agree to take on other competing demands, it will require time, effort, and energy – all of which are in short supply. When team mentorship is established from the outset, such transitions of mentorship can occur seamlessly and with more ease for all.

Additional considerations for successful mentoring of medical students or early-career physicians include understanding generational differences between the mentor and their mentees. As outlined by Waljee and colleagues, the next generation of trainees and physicians may act in ways that deviate from the norms of academic medicine’s tradition. As a mentor, it is imperative to understand these actions are not intended to disrupt the traditions and norms of health systems.⁵ For example, the use of technology during rounds can often be misconstrued as disrespectful. However, the underlying intent in many cases is to answer a question or access a helpful reference.

Seeing behavior and actions from the perspective of the mentee is one of the many ways to support and sustain successful mentoring relationships. A mindful approach benefits both mentees and mentors; this includes reflecting on the underlying motives for mentorship and cultivating gratitude for the relationships formed.⁶ While these steps may seem trivial, gratitude promotes happiness, trust, motivation, and respect. It can be felt by others, including mentees.

As mentors continue to shape the future, they have an ethical obligation to care for themselves, in addition to their mentees. In addition to avoiding mentorship malpractice, engaging in team mentorship, and incorporating mindful mentoring, an emphasis on self-care is critical.⁷ Taking time to recharge is essential. It allows one to be fully present, while also setting an example for the mentee. Explicitly addressing self-care for both mentor and mentee is a part of mindful mentorship, with benefits for all.⁶
 

Three key points:

1. Awareness of mentorship malpractice

2. Importance of team mentorship

3. Benefits of mindful mentorship

Mr. Rodoni is with the University of Michigan Medical School and Stephen M. Ross School of Business, Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Fessel is a professor of radiology in the department of radiology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor. They reported having no disclosures relevant to this article.

References:

1. Chopra V et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Feb;178:175-6.

2. Chopra V et al. JAMA. 2016 Apr 12;315:1453-4.

3. Chopra V et al. The Mentoring Guide: Helping Mentors & Mentees Succeed. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, 2019.

4. Rodoni BM et al. Annals of Surgery. 2020 Aug;272(2):e151-2.

5. Waljee JF et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 17;319(15):1547-8.

6. Chopra V and Saint S. Healthc (Amst). 2020 Mar;8(1):100390.

7. Fessell D et al. “Mentoring During a Crisis.” Harvard Business Review. 2020 Oct 29.

Scenario

A GI faculty member is approached by two medical students who are planning careers in gastroenterology. They are interested in research projects and are very willing to dedicate the necessary time and energy. The faculty member is impressed by their desire and finds themselves recalling their own unsuccessful medical school search for a research mentor. Inspired by their enthusiasm and a desire to “give back,” the faculty member agrees to mentor them and helps them find suitable projects. Primarily because of the students’ hard work and fueled by their desire to produce results that will help their residency applications, the work progresses rapidly. Both students have separate abstracts accepted at a national meeting.

When COVID-19 hits, the faculty member is asked by their department to take on additional administrative and clinical work. They feel they cannot say no. Soon the faculty member finds it difficult to manage these new responsibilities on top of their many research projects, numerous clinical obligations, and additional pressures outside of work. They find they have no time for mentoring or even adequate sleep. Facing burnout, the faculty member is uncertain what to do for these hard-working and very gifted students. How would you recommend they manage their mentoring obligations?
 

Discussion

Mentorship is a cornerstone of academic medicine. In fact, it has been shown that academic clinicians who serve as mentors publish more papers, get more grants, are promoted faster, and are more likely to stay at their academic institutions with greater career satisfaction.¹ However, not every mentor-mentee relationship is mutually beneficial. Usually, it’s the mentees that disproportionately suffer the consequences of a suboptimal relationship.²

Mentorship malpractice occurs when mentors’ behavior crosses a threshold that places the mentees’ success at risk.^1,2 While the case above highlights a specific scenario where multiple issues are unfolding, the ability to recognize, address, and most importantly prevent mentorship malpractice ultimately benefits both mentees and mentors.

Understanding the various types of mentorship malpractice is helpful for prevention and course correction. As described by Chopra and colleagues, there are multiple types of passive and active mentorship malpractice.² The passive forms are characterized by a lack of face-to-face meeting time with mentees and/or a lack of advocacy on the mentees’ behalf. Meanwhile, the active forms occur when the mentor exhibits self-serving behaviors. These can include listing themselves as first author on a mentee’s project or discouraging a mentee from working with other mentors. Mentors must be able to self-check, seek feedback from mentees, and encourage mentees to further their professional networks beyond the boundaries of what the mentor alone can offer. Doing so helps create new opportunities and helps ensure a mutually beneficial relationship.

A great initial step to prevent passive and active mentorship malpractice is to leverage the benefits of team mentorship.^2,3 At its core, team mentorship capitalizes on the collective contributions of multiple mentors. Doing so not only provides security during uncertain times, but also allows for a diversity of perspectives, distribution of workload among mentors, and additional support for mentees.^3,4 Team mentorship it is particularly important during this current global health crisis, and such an approach from the outset could have significantly improved the scenario above.

For the above scenario, likely a transition in mentorship would be needed. Such transitions, whether short term or long term, require transparency, honesty, and willingness to engage in difficult conversations with mentees. Whether the mentor in the above case engages another faculty to take on the mentees or chooses to find a colleague who will agree to take on other competing demands, it will require time, effort, and energy – all of which are in short supply. When team mentorship is established from the outset, such transitions of mentorship can occur seamlessly and with more ease for all.

Additional considerations for successful mentoring of medical students or early-career physicians include understanding generational differences between the mentor and their mentees. As outlined by Waljee and colleagues, the next generation of trainees and physicians may act in ways that deviate from the norms of academic medicine’s tradition. As a mentor, it is imperative to understand these actions are not intended to disrupt the traditions and norms of health systems.⁵ For example, the use of technology during rounds can often be misconstrued as disrespectful. However, the underlying intent in many cases is to answer a question or access a helpful reference.

Seeing behavior and actions from the perspective of the mentee is one of the many ways to support and sustain successful mentoring relationships. A mindful approach benefits both mentees and mentors; this includes reflecting on the underlying motives for mentorship and cultivating gratitude for the relationships formed.⁶ While these steps may seem trivial, gratitude promotes happiness, trust, motivation, and respect. It can be felt by others, including mentees.

As mentors continue to shape the future, they have an ethical obligation to care for themselves, in addition to their mentees. In addition to avoiding mentorship malpractice, engaging in team mentorship, and incorporating mindful mentoring, an emphasis on self-care is critical.⁷ Taking time to recharge is essential. It allows one to be fully present, while also setting an example for the mentee. Explicitly addressing self-care for both mentor and mentee is a part of mindful mentorship, with benefits for all.⁶
 

Three key points:

1. Awareness of mentorship malpractice

2. Importance of team mentorship

3. Benefits of mindful mentorship

Mr. Rodoni is with the University of Michigan Medical School and Stephen M. Ross School of Business, Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Fessel is a professor of radiology in the department of radiology at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor. They reported having no disclosures relevant to this article.

References:

1. Chopra V et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Feb;178:175-6.

2. Chopra V et al. JAMA. 2016 Apr 12;315:1453-4.

3. Chopra V et al. The Mentoring Guide: Helping Mentors & Mentees Succeed. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, 2019.

4. Rodoni BM et al. Annals of Surgery. 2020 Aug;272(2):e151-2.

5. Waljee JF et al. JAMA. 2018 Apr 17;319(15):1547-8.

6. Chopra V and Saint S. Healthc (Amst). 2020 Mar;8(1):100390.

7. Fessell D et al. “Mentoring During a Crisis.” Harvard Business Review. 2020 Oct 29.

Although readers will be forgiven for missing the subtle change, the tables in the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report underwent a landmark structural change that echoes the growth of our field. In the latest SoHM Report, the hospital medicine group (HMG) size categories all increased significantly to reflect the fact that hospitalist groups have grown from a median of 9 physician full time equivalents (FTE) in 2016 to a median of 15.2 employed/contracted FTE (excluding FTE provided by locum tenens providers) in 2020.

For many years, the Report considered “large” adult HMGs to be those with 30 or more FTE of physicians, and smaller groups were organized by FTE categories of <5, 5-9, 10-19, and 20-29. Now the SoHM Report describes a large HMG as 50 employed/contracted FTE or greater, a category that represents 12.7% of HMGs serving adults. The other categories expanded to <5, 5-14, 15-29, and 30-49, respectively. Overall, HMGs are growing in size, and the SoHM displays new data slices that help leaders to compare their group to modern peers.

There are some caveats to consider. First, these figures only represent physician FTE, and essentially all these large groups employ NP/PA hospitalists as well. Second, these HMGs typically employ some part-time and contracted PRN physicians in this FTE count. In combination, these two factors mean that large HMGs often employ many more than 50 individual clinicians. In fact, the average number of physicians in this cohort was 72.3 before counting NP/PAs and locums. Third, do not interpret the portion of large groups in the survey (12.7%) as insignificant. Because each one employs so many total hospitalists, large HMGs collectively represent a common work environment for many hospitalists in the US. Lastly, although pediatric HMGs have grown, far fewer (3.1%) have over 50 FTE, so this column focuses on HMGs serving adults.

Why does it matter that groups are growing in size? The SoHM Report offers extensive data to answer this question. Here are a couple of highlights but consider buying the report to dig deeper. First, large groups are far more likely to offer variable scheduling. Although the 7-on, 7-off scheduling pattern is still the norm in all group sizes, large HMGs are most likely to offer something flexible that might enhance career sustainability for hospitalists. Second, large groups are the most likely to employ a few hospitalists with extra training, whether that be geriatrics, palliative care, pediatrics, or a medicine subspecialty. Working in a large group means you can ask for curbside consults from a diverse and well-trained bunch of colleagues. Third, large groups were most likely to employ nocturnists, meaning fewer night shifts are allocated to the hospitalists who want to focus on daytime work. From an individual perspective, there is a lot to like about working in a large HMG.

There are some drawbacks to larger groups, of course. Large groups can be less socially cohesive and the costs of managing 70-100 hospitalists typically grow well past the capacity of a single group leader. My personal belief is that these downsides can be solved through economies of scale and skilled management teams. In addition, a large group can afford to dedicate leadership FTE to niche hospitalist needs, such as career development and coaching, which are difficult to fund in small practices. This also provides more opportunities for staff hospitalists to begin taking on some leadership or administrative duties or branch out into related areas such as quality improvement, case management physician advisor roles, or IT expertise.

Ultimately, large groups typically represent the maturation of an HMG within a large hospital – it signifies that the hospital relies on that group to deliver great patient outcomes in every corner of the hospital. Where you practice remains a personal choice, but the emergence of large groups hints at the clout and sophistication hospitalists can build by banding together. Learn more about the full 2020 SoHM Report at hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.
 

Dr. White is associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is the chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Although readers will be forgiven for missing the subtle change, the tables in the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report underwent a landmark structural change that echoes the growth of our field. In the latest SoHM Report, the hospital medicine group (HMG) size categories all increased significantly to reflect the fact that hospitalist groups have grown from a median of 9 physician full time equivalents (FTE) in 2016 to a median of 15.2 employed/contracted FTE (excluding FTE provided by locum tenens providers) in 2020.

For many years, the Report considered “large” adult HMGs to be those with 30 or more FTE of physicians, and smaller groups were organized by FTE categories of <5, 5-9, 10-19, and 20-29. Now the SoHM Report describes a large HMG as 50 employed/contracted FTE or greater, a category that represents 12.7% of HMGs serving adults. The other categories expanded to <5, 5-14, 15-29, and 30-49, respectively. Overall, HMGs are growing in size, and the SoHM displays new data slices that help leaders to compare their group to modern peers.

There are some caveats to consider. First, these figures only represent physician FTE, and essentially all these large groups employ NP/PA hospitalists as well. Second, these HMGs typically employ some part-time and contracted PRN physicians in this FTE count. In combination, these two factors mean that large HMGs often employ many more than 50 individual clinicians. In fact, the average number of physicians in this cohort was 72.3 before counting NP/PAs and locums. Third, do not interpret the portion of large groups in the survey (12.7%) as insignificant. Because each one employs so many total hospitalists, large HMGs collectively represent a common work environment for many hospitalists in the US. Lastly, although pediatric HMGs have grown, far fewer (3.1%) have over 50 FTE, so this column focuses on HMGs serving adults.

Why does it matter that groups are growing in size? The SoHM Report offers extensive data to answer this question. Here are a couple of highlights but consider buying the report to dig deeper. First, large groups are far more likely to offer variable scheduling. Although the 7-on, 7-off scheduling pattern is still the norm in all group sizes, large HMGs are most likely to offer something flexible that might enhance career sustainability for hospitalists. Second, large groups are the most likely to employ a few hospitalists with extra training, whether that be geriatrics, palliative care, pediatrics, or a medicine subspecialty. Working in a large group means you can ask for curbside consults from a diverse and well-trained bunch of colleagues. Third, large groups were most likely to employ nocturnists, meaning fewer night shifts are allocated to the hospitalists who want to focus on daytime work. From an individual perspective, there is a lot to like about working in a large HMG.

There are some drawbacks to larger groups, of course. Large groups can be less socially cohesive and the costs of managing 70-100 hospitalists typically grow well past the capacity of a single group leader. My personal belief is that these downsides can be solved through economies of scale and skilled management teams. In addition, a large group can afford to dedicate leadership FTE to niche hospitalist needs, such as career development and coaching, which are difficult to fund in small practices. This also provides more opportunities for staff hospitalists to begin taking on some leadership or administrative duties or branch out into related areas such as quality improvement, case management physician advisor roles, or IT expertise.

Ultimately, large groups typically represent the maturation of an HMG within a large hospital – it signifies that the hospital relies on that group to deliver great patient outcomes in every corner of the hospital. Where you practice remains a personal choice, but the emergence of large groups hints at the clout and sophistication hospitalists can build by banding together. Learn more about the full 2020 SoHM Report at hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.
 

Dr. White is associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is the chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Although readers will be forgiven for missing the subtle change, the tables in the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report underwent a landmark structural change that echoes the growth of our field. In the latest SoHM Report, the hospital medicine group (HMG) size categories all increased significantly to reflect the fact that hospitalist groups have grown from a median of 9 physician full time equivalents (FTE) in 2016 to a median of 15.2 employed/contracted FTE (excluding FTE provided by locum tenens providers) in 2020.

For many years, the Report considered “large” adult HMGs to be those with 30 or more FTE of physicians, and smaller groups were organized by FTE categories of <5, 5-9, 10-19, and 20-29. Now the SoHM Report describes a large HMG as 50 employed/contracted FTE or greater, a category that represents 12.7% of HMGs serving adults. The other categories expanded to <5, 5-14, 15-29, and 30-49, respectively. Overall, HMGs are growing in size, and the SoHM displays new data slices that help leaders to compare their group to modern peers.

There are some caveats to consider. First, these figures only represent physician FTE, and essentially all these large groups employ NP/PA hospitalists as well. Second, these HMGs typically employ some part-time and contracted PRN physicians in this FTE count. In combination, these two factors mean that large HMGs often employ many more than 50 individual clinicians. In fact, the average number of physicians in this cohort was 72.3 before counting NP/PAs and locums. Third, do not interpret the portion of large groups in the survey (12.7%) as insignificant. Because each one employs so many total hospitalists, large HMGs collectively represent a common work environment for many hospitalists in the US. Lastly, although pediatric HMGs have grown, far fewer (3.1%) have over 50 FTE, so this column focuses on HMGs serving adults.

Why does it matter that groups are growing in size? The SoHM Report offers extensive data to answer this question. Here are a couple of highlights but consider buying the report to dig deeper. First, large groups are far more likely to offer variable scheduling. Although the 7-on, 7-off scheduling pattern is still the norm in all group sizes, large HMGs are most likely to offer something flexible that might enhance career sustainability for hospitalists. Second, large groups are the most likely to employ a few hospitalists with extra training, whether that be geriatrics, palliative care, pediatrics, or a medicine subspecialty. Working in a large group means you can ask for curbside consults from a diverse and well-trained bunch of colleagues. Third, large groups were most likely to employ nocturnists, meaning fewer night shifts are allocated to the hospitalists who want to focus on daytime work. From an individual perspective, there is a lot to like about working in a large HMG.

There are some drawbacks to larger groups, of course. Large groups can be less socially cohesive and the costs of managing 70-100 hospitalists typically grow well past the capacity of a single group leader. My personal belief is that these downsides can be solved through economies of scale and skilled management teams. In addition, a large group can afford to dedicate leadership FTE to niche hospitalist needs, such as career development and coaching, which are difficult to fund in small practices. This also provides more opportunities for staff hospitalists to begin taking on some leadership or administrative duties or branch out into related areas such as quality improvement, case management physician advisor roles, or IT expertise.

Ultimately, large groups typically represent the maturation of an HMG within a large hospital – it signifies that the hospital relies on that group to deliver great patient outcomes in every corner of the hospital. Where you practice remains a personal choice, but the emergence of large groups hints at the clout and sophistication hospitalists can build by banding together. Learn more about the full 2020 SoHM Report at hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.
 

Dr. White is associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is the chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.

For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.

Now, the twin shock of income loss and feeling unwanted in a pandemic – when, you know, medicine might seem especially essential – has doctors resorting to a bizarre array of side gigs, “fun-employment” activities, or outright career overhauls.

Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.

“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.

Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.

With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.

A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”

Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.

Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”

Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”

There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.

Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.

“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”

Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.

Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.

As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”

Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.

When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.

“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”

An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.

Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.

Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.

He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.

Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”

Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”

Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.

“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”

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

One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.

For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.

Now, the twin shock of income loss and feeling unwanted in a pandemic – when, you know, medicine might seem especially essential – has doctors resorting to a bizarre array of side gigs, “fun-employment” activities, or outright career overhauls.

Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.

“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.

Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.

With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.

A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”

Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.

Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”

Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”

There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.

Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.

“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”

Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.

Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.

As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”

Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.

When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.

“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”

An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.

Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.

Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.

He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.

Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”

Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”

Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.

“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”

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

One of the biggest conundrums of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the simultaneous panic-hiring of medical professionals in hot spots and significant downsizing of staff across the country. From huge hospital systems to private practices, the stoppage of breast reductions and knee replacements, not to mention the drops in motor vehicle accidents and bar fights, have quieted operating rooms and emergency departments and put doctors’ jobs on the chopping block. A widely cited survey suggests that 21% of doctors have had a work reduction due to COVID-19.

For many American doctors, this is their first extended period of unemployment. Unlike engineers or those with MBAs who might see their fortunes rise and fall with the whims of recessions and boom times, physicians are not exactly accustomed to being laid off. However, doctors were already smarting for years due to falling salaries and decreased autonomy, punctuated by endless clicks on electronic medical records software.

Now, the twin shock of income loss and feeling unwanted in a pandemic – when, you know, medicine might seem especially essential – has doctors resorting to a bizarre array of side gigs, “fun-employment” activities, or outright career overhauls.

Stephanie Eschenbach Morgan, MD, a breast radiologist in North Carolina, trained for 10 years after college before earning a true physician’s salary.

“Being furloughed was awful. Initially, it was only going to be 2 weeks, and then it turned into 2 months with no pay,” she reflected.

Dr. Eschenbach Morgan and her surgeon husband, who lost a full quarter’s salary, had to ask for grace periods on their credit card and mortgage payments because they had paid a large tax bill right before the pandemic began. “We couldn’t get any stimulus help, so that added insult to injury,” she said.

With her time spent waiting in a holding pattern, Dr. Eschenbach Morgan homeschooled her two young children and started putting a home gym together. She went on a home organizing spree, started a garden, and, perhaps most impressively, caught up with 5 years of photo albums.

A bonus she noted: “I didn’t set an alarm for 2 months.”

Shella Farooki, MD, a radiologist in California, was also focused on homeschooling, itself a demanding job, and veered toward retirement. When one of her work contracts furloughed her (“at one point, I made $30K a month for [their business]”), she started saving money at home, teaching the kids, and applied for a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Her husband, a hospitalist, had had his shifts cut. Dr. Farooki tried a radiology artificial intelligence firm but backed out when she was asked to read 9,200 studies for them for $2,000 per month.

Now, she thinks about leaving medicine “every day.”

Some doctors are questioning whether they should be in medicine in the first place. Family medicine physician Jonathan Polak, MD, faced with his own pink slip, turned to pink T-shirts instead. His girlfriend manages an outlet of the teen fashion retailer Justice. Dr. Polak, who finished his residency just 2 years ago, didn’t hesitate to take a $10-an-hour gig as a stock doc, once even finding himself delivering a shelving unit from the shuttering store to a physician fleeing the city for rural New Hampshire to “escape.”

There’s no escape for him – yet. Saddled with “astronomical” student loans, he had considered grocery store work as well. Dr. Polak knows he can’t work part time or go into teaching long term, as he might like.

Even so, he’s doing everything he can to not be in patient care for the long haul – it’s just not what he thought it would be.

“The culture of medicine, bureaucracy, endless paperwork and charting, and threat of litigation sucks a lot of the joy out of it to the point that I don’t see myself doing it forever when imagining myself 5-10 years into it.”

Still, he recently took an 18-month hospital contract that will force him to move to Florida, but he’s also been turning himself into a veritable Renaissance man; composing music, training for an ultramarathon, studying the latest medical findings, roadtripping, and launching a podcast about dog grooming with a master groomer. “We found parallels between medicine and dog grooming,” he says, somewhat convincingly.

Also working the ruff life is Jen Tserng, MD, a former forensic pathologist who landed on news websites in recent years for becoming a professional dogwalker and housesitter without a permanent home. Dr. Tserng knows doctors were restless and unhappy before COVID-19, their thoughts wandering where the grass might be greener.

As her profile grew, she found her inbox gathering messages from disaffected medical minions: students with a fear of failing or staring down residency application season and employed doctors sick of the constant grind. As she recounted those de facto life coach conversations (“What do you really enjoy?” “Do you really like dogs?”) by phone from New York, she said matter-of-factly, “They don’t call because of COVID. They call because they hate their lives.”

Michelle Mudge-Riley, MD, a physician in Texas, has been seeing this shift for some time as well. She recently held a virtual version of her Physicians Helping Physicians conference, where doctors hear from their peers working successfully in fields like pharmaceuticals and real estate investing.

When COVID-19 hit, Dr. Mudge-Riley quickly pivoted to a virtual platform, where the MDs and DOs huddled in breakout rooms having honest chats about their fears and tentative hopes about their new careers.

“There has been increased interest in nonclinical exploration into full- and part-time careers, as well as side hustles, since COVID began,” she said. “Many physicians have had their hours or pay cut, and some have been laid off. Others are furloughed. Some just want out of an environment where they don’t feel safe.”

An ear, nose, and throat surgeon, Maansi Doshi, MD, from central California, didn’t feel safe – so she left. She had returned from India sick with a mystery virus right as the pandemic began (she said her COVID-19 tests were all negative) and was waiting to get well enough to go back to her private practice job. However, she said she clashed with Trump-supporting colleagues she feared might not be taking the pandemic seriously enough.

Finally getting over a relapse of her mystery virus, Dr. Doshi emailed her resignation in May. Her husband, family practice doctor Mark Mangiapane, MD, gave his job notice weeks later in solidarity because he worked in the same building. Together, they have embraced gardening, a Peloton splurge, and learning business skills to open private practices – solo primary care for him; ENT with a focus on her favorite surgery, rhinoplasty, for her.

Dr. Mangiapane had considered editing medical brochures and also tried to apply for a job as a county public health officer in rural California, but he received his own shock when he learned the county intended to open schools in the midst of the pandemic despite advisement to the contrary by the former health officer.

He retreated from job listings altogether after hearing his would-be peers were getting death threats – targeting their children.

Both doctors felt COVID-19 pushed them beyond their comfort zones. “If COVID hadn’t happened, I would be working. ... Be ‘owned.’ In a weird way, COVID made me more independent and take a risk with my career.”

Obstetrician Kwandaa Roberts, MD, certainly did; she took a budding interest in decorating dollhouses straight to Instagram and national news fame, and she is now a TV-show expert on “Sell This House.”

Like Dr. Doshi and Dr. Mangiapane, Dr. Polak wants to be more in control of his future – even if selling T-shirts at a mall means a certain loss of status along the way.

“Aside from my passion to learn and to have that connection with people, I went into medicine ... because of the job security I thought existed,” he said. “I would say that my getting furloughed has changed my view of the United States in a dramatic way. I do not feel as confident in the U.S. economy and general way of life as I did a year ago. And I am taking a number of steps to put myself in a more fluid, adaptable position in case another crisis like this occurs or if the current state of things worsens.”

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

Hospitalists across the United States have been and continue to be a critical part of our nation’s response to COVID-19. On National Hospitalist Day, Thursday, March 4, 2021, the Society of Hospital Medicine invites you to celebrate the individuals and teams that make up the hospital medicine community.

Courtesy Joseph Li

On this special day, SHM encourages you to share your story, showcase your team’s efforts to improve patient care, express your pride for the specialty, or share how you are making a difference in your hospital and in the lives of patients.

Here are just a few of the ways you can celebrate:

• Register for our live roundtable, featuring Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the Explore the Space podcast, and four hospitalist panelists, on March 4 at 7 p.m. ET/4 p.m. PT.
• Download shareable graphics, posters, Zoom backgrounds, and coloring book pages
• Enter our social media photo contest and follow the #HowWeHospitalist hashtag across all platforms
• Read special hospitalist profiles in the Hospitalist, including: Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM; Grace Huang, MD; Bridget McGrath, PA-C, FHM; and Harry Cho, MD, SFHM

Thank you for all you do and continue to do for hospital medicine. We hope you take some time today to celebrate you and your colleagues, as well as your commendable contributions to health care and the future of the specialty.

To learn more about National Hospitalist Day, visit hospitalmedicine.org/hospitalistday.




 

Hospitalists across the United States have been and continue to be a critical part of our nation’s response to COVID-19. On National Hospitalist Day, Thursday, March 4, 2021, the Society of Hospital Medicine invites you to celebrate the individuals and teams that make up the hospital medicine community.

Courtesy Joseph Li

On this special day, SHM encourages you to share your story, showcase your team’s efforts to improve patient care, express your pride for the specialty, or share how you are making a difference in your hospital and in the lives of patients.

Here are just a few of the ways you can celebrate:

• Register for our live roundtable, featuring Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the Explore the Space podcast, and four hospitalist panelists, on March 4 at 7 p.m. ET/4 p.m. PT.
• Download shareable graphics, posters, Zoom backgrounds, and coloring book pages
• Enter our social media photo contest and follow the #HowWeHospitalist hashtag across all platforms
• Read special hospitalist profiles in the Hospitalist, including: Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM; Grace Huang, MD; Bridget McGrath, PA-C, FHM; and Harry Cho, MD, SFHM

Thank you for all you do and continue to do for hospital medicine. We hope you take some time today to celebrate you and your colleagues, as well as your commendable contributions to health care and the future of the specialty.

To learn more about National Hospitalist Day, visit hospitalmedicine.org/hospitalistday.




 

Hospitalists across the United States have been and continue to be a critical part of our nation’s response to COVID-19. On National Hospitalist Day, Thursday, March 4, 2021, the Society of Hospital Medicine invites you to celebrate the individuals and teams that make up the hospital medicine community.

Courtesy Joseph Li

On this special day, SHM encourages you to share your story, showcase your team’s efforts to improve patient care, express your pride for the specialty, or share how you are making a difference in your hospital and in the lives of patients.

Here are just a few of the ways you can celebrate:

• Register for our live roundtable, featuring Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the Explore the Space podcast, and four hospitalist panelists, on March 4 at 7 p.m. ET/4 p.m. PT.
• Download shareable graphics, posters, Zoom backgrounds, and coloring book pages
• Enter our social media photo contest and follow the #HowWeHospitalist hashtag across all platforms
• Read special hospitalist profiles in the Hospitalist, including: Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM; Grace Huang, MD; Bridget McGrath, PA-C, FHM; and Harry Cho, MD, SFHM

Thank you for all you do and continue to do for hospital medicine. We hope you take some time today to celebrate you and your colleagues, as well as your commendable contributions to health care and the future of the specialty.

To learn more about National Hospitalist Day, visit hospitalmedicine.org/hospitalistday.




 

United Healthcare recently became the latest major insurer to offer a “virtual primary care service.” Initially, the service will be part of some employer-sponsored insurance plans in 11 states. United intends to expand its footprint next year.

United is using the platform and the medical group of American Well, a telehealth service, to provide virtual primary care. Besides minor acute care, United’s virtual service covers annual wellness visits, routine follow-ups for chronic conditions, lab tests, and specialist referrals with little or no cost sharing.

The giant insurer is now offering its virtual primary care plan in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

Other insurers are offering similar virtual primary care plans. For example, Humana has partnered with Doctor on Demand, and Cigna is working with MDLive to offer virtual primary care plans. Both of these plans encourage consumers to form ongoing relationships with physicians hired by the telehealth services. Similarly, Harvard Pilgrim, which has also joined with Doctor on Demand, said that consumers get “virtual PCPs” along with a full care team.

Humana has priced the premiums for its virtual service at about half the cost of Humana’s most popular traditional plan. There are no copays for telehealth visits; there are $5 copays for common lab tests and prescriptions. Cigna said that its virtual plan makes coverage “more affordable,” but doesn’t provide any specifics.

According to United spokeswoman Maria Shydlo, the insurer’s virtual primary care service is not cheaper than its traditional products.
 

Increased telehealth adoption

When the COVID-19 pandemic first struck last year, telehealth was a lifesaver for primary care practices. Physicians were able to treat half or more of their patients through telehealth, including video and phone consultations.

That initial romance with telehealth did not last. Today, telehealth represents 9% of adult primary care visits. However, that’s still a much higher percentage than before 2020, and telehealth has become a fixture of primary care.

Prior to the pandemic, telehealth services dominated the virtual care space. Some large groups experimented with having their doctors conduct virtual consults with their patients. Other physicians dabbled with telehealth or stayed out of it entirely because health plans paid much less for virtual visits than for in-person visits.

That began to change as more and more states passed laws requiring payment parity. (Today, 36 states do.) Then as the pandemic took hold, Medicare loosened its regulations, allowing coverage of telehealth everywhere and establishing parity. But it’s unclear what will happen after the public health emergency ends.

United and other insurers portray their virtual primary care plans as an effort to connect more consumers with primary care physicians. Having a relationship with a primary care doctor, United noted in a press release, increases access to care, including preventive services. Moreover, a United survey found that a quarter of respondents preferred a virtual relationship with a primary care doctor.
 

Physician have mostly positive but mixed reactions

This news organization interviewed several physicians who practice in states where United has introduced its new offering. Only one doctor had heard about it, and another, solo family physician Will Sawyer, MD, of Cincinnati no longer contracts with United. Nevertheless, they all had strong opinions about virtual primary care plans from United and other insurers.

Dr. Sawyer is a big proponent of telehealth and notes that it’s “incredibly convenient” for older people, many of whom are afraid to come to the office out of fear they might contract COVID-19. He has found that telehealth can be useful for many kinds of acute and chronic care. But he believes (although he admits he does not have evidence) that United started its virtual primary care service mainly to save money.

No to some kinds of telehealth doctors

The physicians we spoke with were unified in their opposition to virtual primary care plans that mainly use physicians hired by telehealth services. Dr. Sawyer noted that one-off consultations with telehealth doctors might be okay for urgent care. “But what we’re trying to do with patients is change their behavior for better health outcomes, and that doesn’t happen in these one-off contacts,” he said.

Even if a patient were able to develop an online relationship with a telehealth doctor, Dr. Basch said, there are any number of situations in which an in-person visit might be necessary. “Whether it’s a urologic visit, a cardiac visit, or an allergy visit, do I need to listen to you or put my hands on you to palpate your liver? Or is this just a conversation with someone I know to see how they’re doing, how they’re managing their meds? Ninety percent of a diagnosis is history.”

Although the virtual plans allow a telehealth physician to refer a patient to an in-network specialist for an office visit, this isn’t the same as their primary care physician asking them to come in to be examined.

Moreover, Dr. Basch noted, people with chronic conditions can’t be treated only virtually. “I wouldn’t say that primary care should be done predominantly through virtual visits. It may be okay for young and healthy patients, but not for older people with chronic conditions. There are times when they should see their doctor in person.”
 

What can be done via telehealth

On the other hand, Dr. Basch heartily approves of conducting routine follow-up visits virtually for patients with chronic diseases, as long as the physician knows the patient’s history. Telehealth can also be used to coach patients on exercise, nutrition, and other lifestyle changes.

Dr. Kubitschek estimates that around 40%-50% of primary care can be delivered through telehealth. But the remainder encompasses potentially serious conditions that should be diagnosed and treated in face-to-face encounters, he said. “For example, if a patient has abdominal pain, you have to examine the person to get a clue of what they’re talking about. The pains are often diffuse, but they might be painful locally, which could indicate a mass or a bladder distension.”

For that reason, he doesn’t support the idea of patients depending on telehealth doctors in virtual primary care plans. “These doctors would not be available to care for the patient in an urgent situation without sending them to a costly emergency room or urgent care clinic. In those settings, excess testing is done because of a lack of familiarity with the patient and his or her history and exam. I think a combination of in-person and telehealth visits presents the best circumstance for the patient and the physician. Having said that, I do believe that telehealth alone is better than no interaction with a health care provider.”
 

United approach can help with prevention

Donny Aga, MD, an internist with Kelsey-Seybold, a multispecialty group in Houston, has been a member of United’s virtual health advisory group for the past 2 years. In his view, United’s virtual primary care service is moving in the right direction by covering preventive and chronic care. Noting that 25%-30% of patients nationally have put off wellness and chronic care visits out of fear of COVID-19, he said that,“if health plans like United are willing to cover preventive services through telehealth, that will allow us to catch up on a lot of the needed screening tests and exams. So it’s a very positive step forward.”

On the other hand, he said, virtual plans that depend solely on telehealth doctors are not the way to manage chronic conditions. “Primary care is best done by your own primary care physician, not by someone who doesn’t know you from a distance.”

Regarding the virtual plans in which patients can establish relationships with telehealth physicians, Dr. Aga said that this approach can benefit some patients, especially those who live in rural areas and don’t have access to primary care. But there are drawbacks, including the telehealth providers’ lack of knowledge about local specialists.

“The negative is that you don’t have a [primary care physicians] who’s local, who knows you, who has examined you before, and who has a good relationship with those specialists and knows who is the right specialist to see for your problem,” Dr. Aga said. “It’s very difficult, if you don’t live and work in that area, to know the best places to send people.”
 

Virtual visits cost less

Like Dr. Basch, Dr. Aga said it’s possible that some insurance companies might begin to cover office visits only for certain conditions or services if they can be managed more cheaply via telehealth. He hopes that doesn’t happen; if it does, he predicts that patients and doctors will push back hard.

Why would a virtual primary care visit cost a health plan less than an in-person visit if it’s paying doctors the same for both? Dr. Aga said it’s because fewer prescriptions and lab tests are ordered in telehealth encounters. He bases this assertion on the quarter of a million virtual visits that Kelsey-Seybold has conducted and also alludes to published studies.

The characteristics of telehealth visits might explain this phenomenon, he said. “These visits are typically much shorter, and it’s easy to be problem-centric and problem based. Physicians use more of their intuitive skills, rather than just lab everybody up and get an x-ray, because that patient’s not there, and it’s easier to draw blood or get an x-ray if somebody is there.”
 

Cutting practice overhead

From the perspective of Kelsey-Seybold, which is now conducting about a fifth of its visits virtually, “infrastructure costs are less” for telehealth, Aga notes. Although Dr. Kubitschek and Dr. Sawyer say it doesn’t take less time to conduct a telehealth visit than an office visit, other practice costs may decrease in relationship to the percentage of a doctor’s visits that are virtual.

“If implemented appropriately, telehealth consults should cost less in terms of the ancillary costs surrounding care,” said Dr. Basch. He recalls that, some years ago, a five-doctor primary care group in Portland, Ore., began charging small monthly fees to patients for full-service care that included email access. After a while, 40% of their patients were coming in, and the rest received care by email or phone. As a result, the doctors were able to downsize to a smaller office space because they didn’t need a waiting room.

Although Dr. Basch doesn’t believe it would be appropriate for practices to do something like this in the midst of a pandemic, he sees the possibility of it happening in the future. “Eventually, a group might be able to say: ‘Yes, our practice expenses can be lower if we do this smartly. We could do as well as we’ve done on whatever insurance pays for office visits, knowing that we can deliver care to the same patient panel at, say, 10% lower overhead with telehealth.’ ”

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

United Healthcare recently became the latest major insurer to offer a “virtual primary care service.” Initially, the service will be part of some employer-sponsored insurance plans in 11 states. United intends to expand its footprint next year.

United is using the platform and the medical group of American Well, a telehealth service, to provide virtual primary care. Besides minor acute care, United’s virtual service covers annual wellness visits, routine follow-ups for chronic conditions, lab tests, and specialist referrals with little or no cost sharing.

The giant insurer is now offering its virtual primary care plan in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

Other insurers are offering similar virtual primary care plans. For example, Humana has partnered with Doctor on Demand, and Cigna is working with MDLive to offer virtual primary care plans. Both of these plans encourage consumers to form ongoing relationships with physicians hired by the telehealth services. Similarly, Harvard Pilgrim, which has also joined with Doctor on Demand, said that consumers get “virtual PCPs” along with a full care team.

Humana has priced the premiums for its virtual service at about half the cost of Humana’s most popular traditional plan. There are no copays for telehealth visits; there are $5 copays for common lab tests and prescriptions. Cigna said that its virtual plan makes coverage “more affordable,” but doesn’t provide any specifics.

According to United spokeswoman Maria Shydlo, the insurer’s virtual primary care service is not cheaper than its traditional products.
 

Increased telehealth adoption

When the COVID-19 pandemic first struck last year, telehealth was a lifesaver for primary care practices. Physicians were able to treat half or more of their patients through telehealth, including video and phone consultations.

That initial romance with telehealth did not last. Today, telehealth represents 9% of adult primary care visits. However, that’s still a much higher percentage than before 2020, and telehealth has become a fixture of primary care.

Prior to the pandemic, telehealth services dominated the virtual care space. Some large groups experimented with having their doctors conduct virtual consults with their patients. Other physicians dabbled with telehealth or stayed out of it entirely because health plans paid much less for virtual visits than for in-person visits.

That began to change as more and more states passed laws requiring payment parity. (Today, 36 states do.) Then as the pandemic took hold, Medicare loosened its regulations, allowing coverage of telehealth everywhere and establishing parity. But it’s unclear what will happen after the public health emergency ends.

United and other insurers portray their virtual primary care plans as an effort to connect more consumers with primary care physicians. Having a relationship with a primary care doctor, United noted in a press release, increases access to care, including preventive services. Moreover, a United survey found that a quarter of respondents preferred a virtual relationship with a primary care doctor.
 

Physician have mostly positive but mixed reactions

This news organization interviewed several physicians who practice in states where United has introduced its new offering. Only one doctor had heard about it, and another, solo family physician Will Sawyer, MD, of Cincinnati no longer contracts with United. Nevertheless, they all had strong opinions about virtual primary care plans from United and other insurers.

Dr. Sawyer is a big proponent of telehealth and notes that it’s “incredibly convenient” for older people, many of whom are afraid to come to the office out of fear they might contract COVID-19. He has found that telehealth can be useful for many kinds of acute and chronic care. But he believes (although he admits he does not have evidence) that United started its virtual primary care service mainly to save money.

No to some kinds of telehealth doctors

The physicians we spoke with were unified in their opposition to virtual primary care plans that mainly use physicians hired by telehealth services. Dr. Sawyer noted that one-off consultations with telehealth doctors might be okay for urgent care. “But what we’re trying to do with patients is change their behavior for better health outcomes, and that doesn’t happen in these one-off contacts,” he said.

Even if a patient were able to develop an online relationship with a telehealth doctor, Dr. Basch said, there are any number of situations in which an in-person visit might be necessary. “Whether it’s a urologic visit, a cardiac visit, or an allergy visit, do I need to listen to you or put my hands on you to palpate your liver? Or is this just a conversation with someone I know to see how they’re doing, how they’re managing their meds? Ninety percent of a diagnosis is history.”

Although the virtual plans allow a telehealth physician to refer a patient to an in-network specialist for an office visit, this isn’t the same as their primary care physician asking them to come in to be examined.

Moreover, Dr. Basch noted, people with chronic conditions can’t be treated only virtually. “I wouldn’t say that primary care should be done predominantly through virtual visits. It may be okay for young and healthy patients, but not for older people with chronic conditions. There are times when they should see their doctor in person.”
 

What can be done via telehealth

On the other hand, Dr. Basch heartily approves of conducting routine follow-up visits virtually for patients with chronic diseases, as long as the physician knows the patient’s history. Telehealth can also be used to coach patients on exercise, nutrition, and other lifestyle changes.

Dr. Kubitschek estimates that around 40%-50% of primary care can be delivered through telehealth. But the remainder encompasses potentially serious conditions that should be diagnosed and treated in face-to-face encounters, he said. “For example, if a patient has abdominal pain, you have to examine the person to get a clue of what they’re talking about. The pains are often diffuse, but they might be painful locally, which could indicate a mass or a bladder distension.”

For that reason, he doesn’t support the idea of patients depending on telehealth doctors in virtual primary care plans. “These doctors would not be available to care for the patient in an urgent situation without sending them to a costly emergency room or urgent care clinic. In those settings, excess testing is done because of a lack of familiarity with the patient and his or her history and exam. I think a combination of in-person and telehealth visits presents the best circumstance for the patient and the physician. Having said that, I do believe that telehealth alone is better than no interaction with a health care provider.”
 

United approach can help with prevention

Donny Aga, MD, an internist with Kelsey-Seybold, a multispecialty group in Houston, has been a member of United’s virtual health advisory group for the past 2 years. In his view, United’s virtual primary care service is moving in the right direction by covering preventive and chronic care. Noting that 25%-30% of patients nationally have put off wellness and chronic care visits out of fear of COVID-19, he said that,“if health plans like United are willing to cover preventive services through telehealth, that will allow us to catch up on a lot of the needed screening tests and exams. So it’s a very positive step forward.”

On the other hand, he said, virtual plans that depend solely on telehealth doctors are not the way to manage chronic conditions. “Primary care is best done by your own primary care physician, not by someone who doesn’t know you from a distance.”

Regarding the virtual plans in which patients can establish relationships with telehealth physicians, Dr. Aga said that this approach can benefit some patients, especially those who live in rural areas and don’t have access to primary care. But there are drawbacks, including the telehealth providers’ lack of knowledge about local specialists.

“The negative is that you don’t have a [primary care physicians] who’s local, who knows you, who has examined you before, and who has a good relationship with those specialists and knows who is the right specialist to see for your problem,” Dr. Aga said. “It’s very difficult, if you don’t live and work in that area, to know the best places to send people.”
 

Virtual visits cost less

Like Dr. Basch, Dr. Aga said it’s possible that some insurance companies might begin to cover office visits only for certain conditions or services if they can be managed more cheaply via telehealth. He hopes that doesn’t happen; if it does, he predicts that patients and doctors will push back hard.

Why would a virtual primary care visit cost a health plan less than an in-person visit if it’s paying doctors the same for both? Dr. Aga said it’s because fewer prescriptions and lab tests are ordered in telehealth encounters. He bases this assertion on the quarter of a million virtual visits that Kelsey-Seybold has conducted and also alludes to published studies.

The characteristics of telehealth visits might explain this phenomenon, he said. “These visits are typically much shorter, and it’s easy to be problem-centric and problem based. Physicians use more of their intuitive skills, rather than just lab everybody up and get an x-ray, because that patient’s not there, and it’s easier to draw blood or get an x-ray if somebody is there.”
 

Cutting practice overhead

From the perspective of Kelsey-Seybold, which is now conducting about a fifth of its visits virtually, “infrastructure costs are less” for telehealth, Aga notes. Although Dr. Kubitschek and Dr. Sawyer say it doesn’t take less time to conduct a telehealth visit than an office visit, other practice costs may decrease in relationship to the percentage of a doctor’s visits that are virtual.

“If implemented appropriately, telehealth consults should cost less in terms of the ancillary costs surrounding care,” said Dr. Basch. He recalls that, some years ago, a five-doctor primary care group in Portland, Ore., began charging small monthly fees to patients for full-service care that included email access. After a while, 40% of their patients were coming in, and the rest received care by email or phone. As a result, the doctors were able to downsize to a smaller office space because they didn’t need a waiting room.

Although Dr. Basch doesn’t believe it would be appropriate for practices to do something like this in the midst of a pandemic, he sees the possibility of it happening in the future. “Eventually, a group might be able to say: ‘Yes, our practice expenses can be lower if we do this smartly. We could do as well as we’ve done on whatever insurance pays for office visits, knowing that we can deliver care to the same patient panel at, say, 10% lower overhead with telehealth.’ ”

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

United Healthcare recently became the latest major insurer to offer a “virtual primary care service.” Initially, the service will be part of some employer-sponsored insurance plans in 11 states. United intends to expand its footprint next year.

United is using the platform and the medical group of American Well, a telehealth service, to provide virtual primary care. Besides minor acute care, United’s virtual service covers annual wellness visits, routine follow-ups for chronic conditions, lab tests, and specialist referrals with little or no cost sharing.

The giant insurer is now offering its virtual primary care plan in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

Other insurers are offering similar virtual primary care plans. For example, Humana has partnered with Doctor on Demand, and Cigna is working with MDLive to offer virtual primary care plans. Both of these plans encourage consumers to form ongoing relationships with physicians hired by the telehealth services. Similarly, Harvard Pilgrim, which has also joined with Doctor on Demand, said that consumers get “virtual PCPs” along with a full care team.

Humana has priced the premiums for its virtual service at about half the cost of Humana’s most popular traditional plan. There are no copays for telehealth visits; there are $5 copays for common lab tests and prescriptions. Cigna said that its virtual plan makes coverage “more affordable,” but doesn’t provide any specifics.

According to United spokeswoman Maria Shydlo, the insurer’s virtual primary care service is not cheaper than its traditional products.
 

Increased telehealth adoption

When the COVID-19 pandemic first struck last year, telehealth was a lifesaver for primary care practices. Physicians were able to treat half or more of their patients through telehealth, including video and phone consultations.

That initial romance with telehealth did not last. Today, telehealth represents 9% of adult primary care visits. However, that’s still a much higher percentage than before 2020, and telehealth has become a fixture of primary care.

Prior to the pandemic, telehealth services dominated the virtual care space. Some large groups experimented with having their doctors conduct virtual consults with their patients. Other physicians dabbled with telehealth or stayed out of it entirely because health plans paid much less for virtual visits than for in-person visits.

That began to change as more and more states passed laws requiring payment parity. (Today, 36 states do.) Then as the pandemic took hold, Medicare loosened its regulations, allowing coverage of telehealth everywhere and establishing parity. But it’s unclear what will happen after the public health emergency ends.

United and other insurers portray their virtual primary care plans as an effort to connect more consumers with primary care physicians. Having a relationship with a primary care doctor, United noted in a press release, increases access to care, including preventive services. Moreover, a United survey found that a quarter of respondents preferred a virtual relationship with a primary care doctor.
 

Physician have mostly positive but mixed reactions

This news organization interviewed several physicians who practice in states where United has introduced its new offering. Only one doctor had heard about it, and another, solo family physician Will Sawyer, MD, of Cincinnati no longer contracts with United. Nevertheless, they all had strong opinions about virtual primary care plans from United and other insurers.

Dr. Sawyer is a big proponent of telehealth and notes that it’s “incredibly convenient” for older people, many of whom are afraid to come to the office out of fear they might contract COVID-19. He has found that telehealth can be useful for many kinds of acute and chronic care. But he believes (although he admits he does not have evidence) that United started its virtual primary care service mainly to save money.

No to some kinds of telehealth doctors

The physicians we spoke with were unified in their opposition to virtual primary care plans that mainly use physicians hired by telehealth services. Dr. Sawyer noted that one-off consultations with telehealth doctors might be okay for urgent care. “But what we’re trying to do with patients is change their behavior for better health outcomes, and that doesn’t happen in these one-off contacts,” he said.

Even if a patient were able to develop an online relationship with a telehealth doctor, Dr. Basch said, there are any number of situations in which an in-person visit might be necessary. “Whether it’s a urologic visit, a cardiac visit, or an allergy visit, do I need to listen to you or put my hands on you to palpate your liver? Or is this just a conversation with someone I know to see how they’re doing, how they’re managing their meds? Ninety percent of a diagnosis is history.”

Although the virtual plans allow a telehealth physician to refer a patient to an in-network specialist for an office visit, this isn’t the same as their primary care physician asking them to come in to be examined.

Moreover, Dr. Basch noted, people with chronic conditions can’t be treated only virtually. “I wouldn’t say that primary care should be done predominantly through virtual visits. It may be okay for young and healthy patients, but not for older people with chronic conditions. There are times when they should see their doctor in person.”
 

What can be done via telehealth

On the other hand, Dr. Basch heartily approves of conducting routine follow-up visits virtually for patients with chronic diseases, as long as the physician knows the patient’s history. Telehealth can also be used to coach patients on exercise, nutrition, and other lifestyle changes.

Dr. Kubitschek estimates that around 40%-50% of primary care can be delivered through telehealth. But the remainder encompasses potentially serious conditions that should be diagnosed and treated in face-to-face encounters, he said. “For example, if a patient has abdominal pain, you have to examine the person to get a clue of what they’re talking about. The pains are often diffuse, but they might be painful locally, which could indicate a mass or a bladder distension.”

For that reason, he doesn’t support the idea of patients depending on telehealth doctors in virtual primary care plans. “These doctors would not be available to care for the patient in an urgent situation without sending them to a costly emergency room or urgent care clinic. In those settings, excess testing is done because of a lack of familiarity with the patient and his or her history and exam. I think a combination of in-person and telehealth visits presents the best circumstance for the patient and the physician. Having said that, I do believe that telehealth alone is better than no interaction with a health care provider.”
 

United approach can help with prevention

Donny Aga, MD, an internist with Kelsey-Seybold, a multispecialty group in Houston, has been a member of United’s virtual health advisory group for the past 2 years. In his view, United’s virtual primary care service is moving in the right direction by covering preventive and chronic care. Noting that 25%-30% of patients nationally have put off wellness and chronic care visits out of fear of COVID-19, he said that,“if health plans like United are willing to cover preventive services through telehealth, that will allow us to catch up on a lot of the needed screening tests and exams. So it’s a very positive step forward.”

On the other hand, he said, virtual plans that depend solely on telehealth doctors are not the way to manage chronic conditions. “Primary care is best done by your own primary care physician, not by someone who doesn’t know you from a distance.”

Regarding the virtual plans in which patients can establish relationships with telehealth physicians, Dr. Aga said that this approach can benefit some patients, especially those who live in rural areas and don’t have access to primary care. But there are drawbacks, including the telehealth providers’ lack of knowledge about local specialists.

“The negative is that you don’t have a [primary care physicians] who’s local, who knows you, who has examined you before, and who has a good relationship with those specialists and knows who is the right specialist to see for your problem,” Dr. Aga said. “It’s very difficult, if you don’t live and work in that area, to know the best places to send people.”
 

Virtual visits cost less

Like Dr. Basch, Dr. Aga said it’s possible that some insurance companies might begin to cover office visits only for certain conditions or services if they can be managed more cheaply via telehealth. He hopes that doesn’t happen; if it does, he predicts that patients and doctors will push back hard.

Why would a virtual primary care visit cost a health plan less than an in-person visit if it’s paying doctors the same for both? Dr. Aga said it’s because fewer prescriptions and lab tests are ordered in telehealth encounters. He bases this assertion on the quarter of a million virtual visits that Kelsey-Seybold has conducted and also alludes to published studies.

The characteristics of telehealth visits might explain this phenomenon, he said. “These visits are typically much shorter, and it’s easy to be problem-centric and problem based. Physicians use more of their intuitive skills, rather than just lab everybody up and get an x-ray, because that patient’s not there, and it’s easier to draw blood or get an x-ray if somebody is there.”
 

Cutting practice overhead

From the perspective of Kelsey-Seybold, which is now conducting about a fifth of its visits virtually, “infrastructure costs are less” for telehealth, Aga notes. Although Dr. Kubitschek and Dr. Sawyer say it doesn’t take less time to conduct a telehealth visit than an office visit, other practice costs may decrease in relationship to the percentage of a doctor’s visits that are virtual.

“If implemented appropriately, telehealth consults should cost less in terms of the ancillary costs surrounding care,” said Dr. Basch. He recalls that, some years ago, a five-doctor primary care group in Portland, Ore., began charging small monthly fees to patients for full-service care that included email access. After a while, 40% of their patients were coming in, and the rest received care by email or phone. As a result, the doctors were able to downsize to a smaller office space because they didn’t need a waiting room.

Although Dr. Basch doesn’t believe it would be appropriate for practices to do something like this in the midst of a pandemic, he sees the possibility of it happening in the future. “Eventually, a group might be able to say: ‘Yes, our practice expenses can be lower if we do this smartly. We could do as well as we’ve done on whatever insurance pays for office visits, knowing that we can deliver care to the same patient panel at, say, 10% lower overhead with telehealth.’ ”

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