In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

In the “You asked, Dr. Jen Gunter answered” series in The New York Times, Dr. Gunter writes that “pelvic floor exercises (also known as Kegel exercises) can be very helpful for urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence.” She continues to say that “pelvic floor exercises can be hard to master correctly, so it is important to make sure [one has] the correct technique. Many women can learn to do them after reading instructions like the ones found at the National Association for Continence, but some women may need their technique checked by their doctor, or help from a specialized pelvic floor physical therapist.”¹

Similarly, Sudol and colleagues write that “guidelines from multiple medical societies emphasize the importance of patient education, behavioral therapy, and/or exercise regimens in the initial treatment and management of women with pelvic floor disorders. However, even with well-established recommendations, engaging patients and maintaining adherence to treatment plans and unmonitored programs at home are often difficult.”² To help patients, those authors identified and evaluated patient-centered apps on topics in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.²

Two apps that assist patients in Kegel exercises are presented here. The Squeezy app includes guided pelvic floor muscle exercises with reminders, and the Kegel Nation app has a biofeedback feature.

The TABLE details the features of the 2 apps based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³

I hope clinicians find these apps helpful to their patients with pelvic floor disorders.

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

Nearly 10 months since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, ICUs across the country are reaching maximum capacity and hospitalizations are outnumbering the available providers and staff to care for them. Clinicians everywhere are becoming exhausted and frustrated, and the world is all asking when an end to this pandemic will be in sight? The Food and Drug Administration issued emergency authorization for two multidose COVID-19 vaccines that are now being deployed across the country.

At this writing, 2.8 million Americans have received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose, a number far short of the projected 100 million. The limited production capacity and tiered distribution are the main determinants of who gets the vaccine and when, but a third and extremely important factor in whether people will choose to get vaccinated is their level of awareness of and trust in the scientific and medical processes behind wide-scale vaccination.

As medical professionals, many of us wouldn’t hesitate to get vaccinated against a pandemic virus. Concerns about safety and the integrity of the COVID-19 vaccine development process in light of the “warp speed” of its production has many Americans concerned about getting vaccinated. We may not be able to relate to some patients’ reluctance to receive a vaccine that has been confirmed by phase 3 clinical trials with collectively over 66,000 participants (nearly 10% African American in each study) to have an effectiveness of over 90%. We are so intimately familiar with the vaccine development process, the medical terminology used to describe these results and the effectiveness of vaccines overall in eliminating infectious diseases like polio and smallpox. To many of us, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may be considered a no-brainer. However, and especially for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) patients with sickle cell disease or other hematologic disorders, the history of medical racism and a pattern of negative health care experiences have sown a distrust of the medical research community that spurs vaccine hesitancy despite the far-reaching impact of this pandemic.

I asked an African American friend of mine who is a pediatrician if she would get the vaccine, to which she replied: “People of color are already aware of the experiments and trials performed on our communities without the knowledge and informed consent of those being tested – many of whom were children, impoverished or disenfranchised – so while I personally will get vaccinated, I understand why some wouldn’t be as trusting.”

In December 2020, a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a primary factor behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black respondents was the fear of catching the virus from the vaccine.¹ While this is an understandable concern for the general public, there needs to be a wide-reaching patient education effort to teach about the vaccine and how it was designed to work, (especially around the use of messenger RNA technology) so as to put such fears to rest and empower patients to go into this process as knowledgeable advocates for their own health.

With so many sources of information about the pandemic, there are just as many sources of misinformation being spouted by biased outlets on all sides of the political spectrum.

Physicians are most likely to influence their patients’ willingness to take the flu vaccine, accept treatment recommendations as well as potentially accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Our responsibility as care providers is to help our patients filter through the information and provide them with the tools, they need to understand what is fact and what is fiction. We are to answer their questions and concerns, correct any misunderstandings, and address their individual reasons for hesitancy. We must also pay particular attention to our BIPOC patient populations who may have unique reasons for declining the vaccine, compared with the general population. Our conversations should not only reassure patients that the vaccines currently available won’t give them COVID-19, but also address concerns about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and reiterate that no corners were cut in the development and approval process.

As a hematologist I have had to become very comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations with my patients about the history of maltreatment and discrimination toward minorities in health care, while reassuring them of the current attempts to right those wrongs and the major wins we have had in research when it comes to adapting therapeutics to diverse populations for optimal outcomes.

The conversation about vaccine hesitancy should be held with patience and humility, acknowledging the past and validating patient concerns that will influence their decisions. We need to be more humane and relatable, and use real-world language to clearly share the facts without buzzwords and jargon that may confuse or even reinforce perceptions of lack of transparency.

I received my COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 29, 2020, and my experience was similar to that of anyone else’s. I had the same concerns most of my patients and colleagues have expressed, but when I saw my sister share her “postvax selfie” on WhatsApp and discussed her experience with her, I felt more comfortable. I then spoke with my allergist, my primary care provider, my husband, and other people in my personal circles before I scheduled my appointment. After my first dose, I called my sister-in-law, a nurse in Canada, who expressed the same concerns that I had and was about to cancel her appointment for that afternoon. I shared my selfie, I shared my experience, and that afternoon she got her vaccine.

The best way to restore a fundamental trust in science and medicine in our patients is to relate to them as humans. Our patients need to know we have the same concerns and fears that they do and that sometimes we have just as many questions too. Communicating openly and authentically, not only with our patients but in all our spheres of influence, can help rebuild the relationship between the public and the health care system. By giving them a glimpse of our humanity, we can support each other as we hopefully eventually see an end to this pandemic.

Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.

References

1. www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/

Nearly 10 months since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, ICUs across the country are reaching maximum capacity and hospitalizations are outnumbering the available providers and staff to care for them. Clinicians everywhere are becoming exhausted and frustrated, and the world is all asking when an end to this pandemic will be in sight? The Food and Drug Administration issued emergency authorization for two multidose COVID-19 vaccines that are now being deployed across the country.

At this writing, 2.8 million Americans have received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose, a number far short of the projected 100 million. The limited production capacity and tiered distribution are the main determinants of who gets the vaccine and when, but a third and extremely important factor in whether people will choose to get vaccinated is their level of awareness of and trust in the scientific and medical processes behind wide-scale vaccination.

As medical professionals, many of us wouldn’t hesitate to get vaccinated against a pandemic virus. Concerns about safety and the integrity of the COVID-19 vaccine development process in light of the “warp speed” of its production has many Americans concerned about getting vaccinated. We may not be able to relate to some patients’ reluctance to receive a vaccine that has been confirmed by phase 3 clinical trials with collectively over 66,000 participants (nearly 10% African American in each study) to have an effectiveness of over 90%. We are so intimately familiar with the vaccine development process, the medical terminology used to describe these results and the effectiveness of vaccines overall in eliminating infectious diseases like polio and smallpox. To many of us, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may be considered a no-brainer. However, and especially for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) patients with sickle cell disease or other hematologic disorders, the history of medical racism and a pattern of negative health care experiences have sown a distrust of the medical research community that spurs vaccine hesitancy despite the far-reaching impact of this pandemic.

I asked an African American friend of mine who is a pediatrician if she would get the vaccine, to which she replied: “People of color are already aware of the experiments and trials performed on our communities without the knowledge and informed consent of those being tested – many of whom were children, impoverished or disenfranchised – so while I personally will get vaccinated, I understand why some wouldn’t be as trusting.”

In December 2020, a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a primary factor behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black respondents was the fear of catching the virus from the vaccine.¹ While this is an understandable concern for the general public, there needs to be a wide-reaching patient education effort to teach about the vaccine and how it was designed to work, (especially around the use of messenger RNA technology) so as to put such fears to rest and empower patients to go into this process as knowledgeable advocates for their own health.

With so many sources of information about the pandemic, there are just as many sources of misinformation being spouted by biased outlets on all sides of the political spectrum.

Physicians are most likely to influence their patients’ willingness to take the flu vaccine, accept treatment recommendations as well as potentially accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Our responsibility as care providers is to help our patients filter through the information and provide them with the tools, they need to understand what is fact and what is fiction. We are to answer their questions and concerns, correct any misunderstandings, and address their individual reasons for hesitancy. We must also pay particular attention to our BIPOC patient populations who may have unique reasons for declining the vaccine, compared with the general population. Our conversations should not only reassure patients that the vaccines currently available won’t give them COVID-19, but also address concerns about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and reiterate that no corners were cut in the development and approval process.

As a hematologist I have had to become very comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations with my patients about the history of maltreatment and discrimination toward minorities in health care, while reassuring them of the current attempts to right those wrongs and the major wins we have had in research when it comes to adapting therapeutics to diverse populations for optimal outcomes.

The conversation about vaccine hesitancy should be held with patience and humility, acknowledging the past and validating patient concerns that will influence their decisions. We need to be more humane and relatable, and use real-world language to clearly share the facts without buzzwords and jargon that may confuse or even reinforce perceptions of lack of transparency.

I received my COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 29, 2020, and my experience was similar to that of anyone else’s. I had the same concerns most of my patients and colleagues have expressed, but when I saw my sister share her “postvax selfie” on WhatsApp and discussed her experience with her, I felt more comfortable. I then spoke with my allergist, my primary care provider, my husband, and other people in my personal circles before I scheduled my appointment. After my first dose, I called my sister-in-law, a nurse in Canada, who expressed the same concerns that I had and was about to cancel her appointment for that afternoon. I shared my selfie, I shared my experience, and that afternoon she got her vaccine.

The best way to restore a fundamental trust in science and medicine in our patients is to relate to them as humans. Our patients need to know we have the same concerns and fears that they do and that sometimes we have just as many questions too. Communicating openly and authentically, not only with our patients but in all our spheres of influence, can help rebuild the relationship between the public and the health care system. By giving them a glimpse of our humanity, we can support each other as we hopefully eventually see an end to this pandemic.

Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.

References

1. www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/

Nearly 10 months since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, ICUs across the country are reaching maximum capacity and hospitalizations are outnumbering the available providers and staff to care for them. Clinicians everywhere are becoming exhausted and frustrated, and the world is all asking when an end to this pandemic will be in sight? The Food and Drug Administration issued emergency authorization for two multidose COVID-19 vaccines that are now being deployed across the country.

At this writing, 2.8 million Americans have received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose, a number far short of the projected 100 million. The limited production capacity and tiered distribution are the main determinants of who gets the vaccine and when, but a third and extremely important factor in whether people will choose to get vaccinated is their level of awareness of and trust in the scientific and medical processes behind wide-scale vaccination.

As medical professionals, many of us wouldn’t hesitate to get vaccinated against a pandemic virus. Concerns about safety and the integrity of the COVID-19 vaccine development process in light of the “warp speed” of its production has many Americans concerned about getting vaccinated. We may not be able to relate to some patients’ reluctance to receive a vaccine that has been confirmed by phase 3 clinical trials with collectively over 66,000 participants (nearly 10% African American in each study) to have an effectiveness of over 90%. We are so intimately familiar with the vaccine development process, the medical terminology used to describe these results and the effectiveness of vaccines overall in eliminating infectious diseases like polio and smallpox. To many of us, receiving the COVID-19 vaccine may be considered a no-brainer. However, and especially for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) patients with sickle cell disease or other hematologic disorders, the history of medical racism and a pattern of negative health care experiences have sown a distrust of the medical research community that spurs vaccine hesitancy despite the far-reaching impact of this pandemic.

I asked an African American friend of mine who is a pediatrician if she would get the vaccine, to which she replied: “People of color are already aware of the experiments and trials performed on our communities without the knowledge and informed consent of those being tested – many of whom were children, impoverished or disenfranchised – so while I personally will get vaccinated, I understand why some wouldn’t be as trusting.”

In December 2020, a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a primary factor behind COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black respondents was the fear of catching the virus from the vaccine.¹ While this is an understandable concern for the general public, there needs to be a wide-reaching patient education effort to teach about the vaccine and how it was designed to work, (especially around the use of messenger RNA technology) so as to put such fears to rest and empower patients to go into this process as knowledgeable advocates for their own health.

With so many sources of information about the pandemic, there are just as many sources of misinformation being spouted by biased outlets on all sides of the political spectrum.

Physicians are most likely to influence their patients’ willingness to take the flu vaccine, accept treatment recommendations as well as potentially accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Our responsibility as care providers is to help our patients filter through the information and provide them with the tools, they need to understand what is fact and what is fiction. We are to answer their questions and concerns, correct any misunderstandings, and address their individual reasons for hesitancy. We must also pay particular attention to our BIPOC patient populations who may have unique reasons for declining the vaccine, compared with the general population. Our conversations should not only reassure patients that the vaccines currently available won’t give them COVID-19, but also address concerns about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and reiterate that no corners were cut in the development and approval process.

As a hematologist I have had to become very comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations with my patients about the history of maltreatment and discrimination toward minorities in health care, while reassuring them of the current attempts to right those wrongs and the major wins we have had in research when it comes to adapting therapeutics to diverse populations for optimal outcomes.

The conversation about vaccine hesitancy should be held with patience and humility, acknowledging the past and validating patient concerns that will influence their decisions. We need to be more humane and relatable, and use real-world language to clearly share the facts without buzzwords and jargon that may confuse or even reinforce perceptions of lack of transparency.

I received my COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 29, 2020, and my experience was similar to that of anyone else’s. I had the same concerns most of my patients and colleagues have expressed, but when I saw my sister share her “postvax selfie” on WhatsApp and discussed her experience with her, I felt more comfortable. I then spoke with my allergist, my primary care provider, my husband, and other people in my personal circles before I scheduled my appointment. After my first dose, I called my sister-in-law, a nurse in Canada, who expressed the same concerns that I had and was about to cancel her appointment for that afternoon. I shared my selfie, I shared my experience, and that afternoon she got her vaccine.

The best way to restore a fundamental trust in science and medicine in our patients is to relate to them as humans. Our patients need to know we have the same concerns and fears that they do and that sometimes we have just as many questions too. Communicating openly and authentically, not only with our patients but in all our spheres of influence, can help rebuild the relationship between the public and the health care system. By giving them a glimpse of our humanity, we can support each other as we hopefully eventually see an end to this pandemic.

Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, is a professor of medicine and the director of the Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C. She is the editor in chief of Hematology News.

References

1. www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/

Recently I got a referral from another office and skimmed through it, as I always do, to make sure it’s something I handle in my little practice.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Recently I got a referral from another office and skimmed through it, as I always do, to make sure it’s something I handle in my little practice.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Recently I got a referral from another office and skimmed through it, as I always do, to make sure it’s something I handle in my little practice.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of lupus for which there is a great unmet therapeutic need. The first step to preserve kidney function is to identify kidney involvement with blood and urine tests, and to assess whether a kidney biopsy is needed. Dr. Richard Furie, Chief of Rheumatology at Northwell Health, shares recommendations for evaluating whether a patient is a candidate for kidney biopsy based on their protein/creatinine ratio and serologic activity.

Dr. Furie also reviews treatment options based on biopsy results, including steroids, immunosuppressive agents, and calcineurin inhibitors, as well as significant findings from the recent BLISS-LN, NOBILITY, and AURORA trials.

--

Chief of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Professor, Center for Autoimmune, Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research
Professor of Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Richard A. Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a consultant for AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.

Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of lupus for which there is a great unmet therapeutic need. The first step to preserve kidney function is to identify kidney involvement with blood and urine tests, and to assess whether a kidney biopsy is needed. Dr. Richard Furie, Chief of Rheumatology at Northwell Health, shares recommendations for evaluating whether a patient is a candidate for kidney biopsy based on their protein/creatinine ratio and serologic activity.

Dr. Furie also reviews treatment options based on biopsy results, including steroids, immunosuppressive agents, and calcineurin inhibitors, as well as significant findings from the recent BLISS-LN, NOBILITY, and AURORA trials.

--

Chief of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Professor, Center for Autoimmune, Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research
Professor of Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Richard A. Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a consultant for AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.

Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of lupus for which there is a great unmet therapeutic need. The first step to preserve kidney function is to identify kidney involvement with blood and urine tests, and to assess whether a kidney biopsy is needed. Dr. Richard Furie, Chief of Rheumatology at Northwell Health, shares recommendations for evaluating whether a patient is a candidate for kidney biopsy based on their protein/creatinine ratio and serologic activity.

Dr. Furie also reviews treatment options based on biopsy results, including steroids, immunosuppressive agents, and calcineurin inhibitors, as well as significant findings from the recent BLISS-LN, NOBILITY, and AURORA trials.

--

Chief of Rheumatology, Northwell Health
Professor, Center for Autoimmune, Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research
Professor of Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Richard A. Furie, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a consultant for AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Biogen; Aurinia; Bristol-Myers Squibb; EMD Serono.

When we went to medical school, how many of us thought we would practice through a pandemic? For most of us, 2020 was the most challenging professional year of our lives. As a psychiatrist, I found it particularly odd to be struggling with the same issues as all of my patients and to have all my patients in crisis at the same time. I was repeatedly asked by friends, “How are your patients doing?” My reply, “About the same as the rest of us.” After a period of adapting, I felt truly blessed to be able to practice online. I know many of my colleagues did not have that luxury, and the stress you endured is hard to fathom.

Yet, as Friedrich Nietzsche said in so many words, “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger,” and here we are in a new year. As we enter 2021, we know so much more about COVID-19 than we did mere months ago, and many of us have been fortunate enough to be vaccinated already.

We should be very proud of our medical and scientific community, which has worked so hard to prevent and treat COVID-19. It is indeed a miracle of modern medicine that two vaccines made their way through development to distribution in under a year. It is a great relief that health care workers are first in line: Of the 4 million vaccine doses given worldwide, 2 million were to U.S. medical personnel. We can now track the number of people vaccinated around the globe.

Yet, “the darkest hour is just before the dawn.” We are currently in the riskiest part of the pandemic, and we must continue to work hard.

RelaxFoto.de/Getty Images

• Physical vitality: The toll of 2020 has been enormous. If we are to rebound, we must care for ourselves. In our training, we were taught to put our health aside and work grueling hours. But to recover from trauma, we must attend to our own needs. Even after we are vaccinated, we must keep our nutritional status and immunity functioning at optimal levels. Let’s not get COVID-19 complacency. Clearly, health matters most. Ours included!
• Mental toughness: We made it through an incredibly grueling year, and we had to “build it as we sailed.” We figured out how to save as many lives as we could and simultaneously keep ourselves and our families safe. We have seen things previously unimaginable. We have adjusted to telemedicine. We have lived with far fewer pleasures. We have cultivated multiple ways to tame our anxieties. The year 2020 is one we can be proud of for ourselves and our colleagues. We have come a long way in a short time.
• Emotional balance: Anxiety and depression were easy to fall into in 2020. But as the pandemic subsides, the pendulum will swing the other way. The 1918 pandemic gave rise to the Roaring Twenties. What will the next chapter in our civilization bring? We can choose to actively cultivate positive emotions, such as joy, gratitude, and optimism as we move forward.
• Loving and strong connections. Our relationships are what give depth and meaning to our lives, and these relationships are crucial now so we can heal. How can we nourish our connections? What toll has the pandemic taken on those closest to you? Did some friends or family step up and help? Can we move out of our caretaker role and allow others to care for us?
• Spiritual connection: Facing so much grief and suffering, we have had an opportunity to look at our own lives from a different perspective. It has been an important year for reflection. How can we cultivate a deeper appreciation recognizing that every day is truly a gift? Did you find more purpose in your work last year? What sustained you in your time of need?
• Inspiring leadership: As health care professionals, we must set an example. We must show our patients and our families how resilient we can be. Let’s grow from trauma and avoid succumbing to depression, self-destructive tendencies, and divisiveness. We must continue to care for ourselves, our patients, and our community and work together to ensure a brighter and safer future for all.

Wishing you a safe, happy and healthy 2021.



“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

– Carl Jung, PhD
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Mimosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

When we went to medical school, how many of us thought we would practice through a pandemic? For most of us, 2020 was the most challenging professional year of our lives. As a psychiatrist, I found it particularly odd to be struggling with the same issues as all of my patients and to have all my patients in crisis at the same time. I was repeatedly asked by friends, “How are your patients doing?” My reply, “About the same as the rest of us.” After a period of adapting, I felt truly blessed to be able to practice online. I know many of my colleagues did not have that luxury, and the stress you endured is hard to fathom.

Yet, as Friedrich Nietzsche said in so many words, “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger,” and here we are in a new year. As we enter 2021, we know so much more about COVID-19 than we did mere months ago, and many of us have been fortunate enough to be vaccinated already.

We should be very proud of our medical and scientific community, which has worked so hard to prevent and treat COVID-19. It is indeed a miracle of modern medicine that two vaccines made their way through development to distribution in under a year. It is a great relief that health care workers are first in line: Of the 4 million vaccine doses given worldwide, 2 million were to U.S. medical personnel. We can now track the number of people vaccinated around the globe.

Yet, “the darkest hour is just before the dawn.” We are currently in the riskiest part of the pandemic, and we must continue to work hard.

RelaxFoto.de/Getty Images

• Physical vitality: The toll of 2020 has been enormous. If we are to rebound, we must care for ourselves. In our training, we were taught to put our health aside and work grueling hours. But to recover from trauma, we must attend to our own needs. Even after we are vaccinated, we must keep our nutritional status and immunity functioning at optimal levels. Let’s not get COVID-19 complacency. Clearly, health matters most. Ours included!
• Mental toughness: We made it through an incredibly grueling year, and we had to “build it as we sailed.” We figured out how to save as many lives as we could and simultaneously keep ourselves and our families safe. We have seen things previously unimaginable. We have adjusted to telemedicine. We have lived with far fewer pleasures. We have cultivated multiple ways to tame our anxieties. The year 2020 is one we can be proud of for ourselves and our colleagues. We have come a long way in a short time.
• Emotional balance: Anxiety and depression were easy to fall into in 2020. But as the pandemic subsides, the pendulum will swing the other way. The 1918 pandemic gave rise to the Roaring Twenties. What will the next chapter in our civilization bring? We can choose to actively cultivate positive emotions, such as joy, gratitude, and optimism as we move forward.
• Loving and strong connections. Our relationships are what give depth and meaning to our lives, and these relationships are crucial now so we can heal. How can we nourish our connections? What toll has the pandemic taken on those closest to you? Did some friends or family step up and help? Can we move out of our caretaker role and allow others to care for us?
• Spiritual connection: Facing so much grief and suffering, we have had an opportunity to look at our own lives from a different perspective. It has been an important year for reflection. How can we cultivate a deeper appreciation recognizing that every day is truly a gift? Did you find more purpose in your work last year? What sustained you in your time of need?
• Inspiring leadership: As health care professionals, we must set an example. We must show our patients and our families how resilient we can be. Let’s grow from trauma and avoid succumbing to depression, self-destructive tendencies, and divisiveness. We must continue to care for ourselves, our patients, and our community and work together to ensure a brighter and safer future for all.

Wishing you a safe, happy and healthy 2021.



“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

– Carl Jung, PhD
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Mimosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

When we went to medical school, how many of us thought we would practice through a pandemic? For most of us, 2020 was the most challenging professional year of our lives. As a psychiatrist, I found it particularly odd to be struggling with the same issues as all of my patients and to have all my patients in crisis at the same time. I was repeatedly asked by friends, “How are your patients doing?” My reply, “About the same as the rest of us.” After a period of adapting, I felt truly blessed to be able to practice online. I know many of my colleagues did not have that luxury, and the stress you endured is hard to fathom.

Yet, as Friedrich Nietzsche said in so many words, “What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger,” and here we are in a new year. As we enter 2021, we know so much more about COVID-19 than we did mere months ago, and many of us have been fortunate enough to be vaccinated already.

We should be very proud of our medical and scientific community, which has worked so hard to prevent and treat COVID-19. It is indeed a miracle of modern medicine that two vaccines made their way through development to distribution in under a year. It is a great relief that health care workers are first in line: Of the 4 million vaccine doses given worldwide, 2 million were to U.S. medical personnel. We can now track the number of people vaccinated around the globe.

Yet, “the darkest hour is just before the dawn.” We are currently in the riskiest part of the pandemic, and we must continue to work hard.

RelaxFoto.de/Getty Images

• Physical vitality: The toll of 2020 has been enormous. If we are to rebound, we must care for ourselves. In our training, we were taught to put our health aside and work grueling hours. But to recover from trauma, we must attend to our own needs. Even after we are vaccinated, we must keep our nutritional status and immunity functioning at optimal levels. Let’s not get COVID-19 complacency. Clearly, health matters most. Ours included!
• Mental toughness: We made it through an incredibly grueling year, and we had to “build it as we sailed.” We figured out how to save as many lives as we could and simultaneously keep ourselves and our families safe. We have seen things previously unimaginable. We have adjusted to telemedicine. We have lived with far fewer pleasures. We have cultivated multiple ways to tame our anxieties. The year 2020 is one we can be proud of for ourselves and our colleagues. We have come a long way in a short time.
• Emotional balance: Anxiety and depression were easy to fall into in 2020. But as the pandemic subsides, the pendulum will swing the other way. The 1918 pandemic gave rise to the Roaring Twenties. What will the next chapter in our civilization bring? We can choose to actively cultivate positive emotions, such as joy, gratitude, and optimism as we move forward.
• Loving and strong connections. Our relationships are what give depth and meaning to our lives, and these relationships are crucial now so we can heal. How can we nourish our connections? What toll has the pandemic taken on those closest to you? Did some friends or family step up and help? Can we move out of our caretaker role and allow others to care for us?
• Spiritual connection: Facing so much grief and suffering, we have had an opportunity to look at our own lives from a different perspective. It has been an important year for reflection. How can we cultivate a deeper appreciation recognizing that every day is truly a gift? Did you find more purpose in your work last year? What sustained you in your time of need?
• Inspiring leadership: As health care professionals, we must set an example. We must show our patients and our families how resilient we can be. Let’s grow from trauma and avoid succumbing to depression, self-destructive tendencies, and divisiveness. We must continue to care for ourselves, our patients, and our community and work together to ensure a brighter and safer future for all.

Wishing you a safe, happy and healthy 2021.



“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

– Carl Jung, PhD
 

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Mimosa Publishing, 2018). She has no conflicts of interest.

Happy New Year! We all are counting on 2021 to be much different and better than 2020. As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.

I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.

I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.

Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.

Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Happy New Year! We all are counting on 2021 to be much different and better than 2020. As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.

I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.

I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.

Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.

Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Happy New Year! We all are counting on 2021 to be much different and better than 2020. As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.

I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.

I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.

Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.

Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief