The Senate has confirmed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, as the nation’s first mental health czar.

Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, has focused her career largely on addiction treatment, particularly opioid abuse. This expertise has helped her receive the backing of several mental health organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

As leader of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Dr. McCance-Katz is expected to streamline more than 100 federal mental health agencies into a more effective system and to oversee a more than $3.5 billion budget annually. Having previously served as SAMHSA’s chief medical officer, Dr. McCance-Katz once again enters the fray surrounding the agency’s historically poor record of serving people with serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Dr. McCance-Katz stepped down from her chief medical officer role in 2015 after serving 2 years, later penning a piece criticizing the agency’s lack of commitment to understanding – much less implementing – psychiatric treatments based on a medical approach. Instead, she argued, SAMHSA favored non–evidence-based psychosocial interventions.

Despite this, Rep. Tim Murphy (R.-Penn.) – a clinical psychologist and the congressman most responsible for drafting the legislation that created the position – issued a highly critical statement when her nomination was announced earlier this year. He called into question Dr. McCance-Katz’s commitment to the medical model and blamed her in part for the agency’s previous failures.

Dr. McCance-Katz currently serves as the chief medical officer at the Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals. She also is a professor of psychiatry and human behavior, and professor of behavioral and social sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I. She is expected to take up her new post as U.S. assistant secretary for mental health and substance use by the fall, according to a SAMHSA spokeperson.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

The Senate has confirmed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, as the nation’s first mental health czar.

Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, has focused her career largely on addiction treatment, particularly opioid abuse. This expertise has helped her receive the backing of several mental health organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

As leader of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Dr. McCance-Katz is expected to streamline more than 100 federal mental health agencies into a more effective system and to oversee a more than $3.5 billion budget annually. Having previously served as SAMHSA’s chief medical officer, Dr. McCance-Katz once again enters the fray surrounding the agency’s historically poor record of serving people with serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Dr. McCance-Katz stepped down from her chief medical officer role in 2015 after serving 2 years, later penning a piece criticizing the agency’s lack of commitment to understanding – much less implementing – psychiatric treatments based on a medical approach. Instead, she argued, SAMHSA favored non–evidence-based psychosocial interventions.

Despite this, Rep. Tim Murphy (R.-Penn.) – a clinical psychologist and the congressman most responsible for drafting the legislation that created the position – issued a highly critical statement when her nomination was announced earlier this year. He called into question Dr. McCance-Katz’s commitment to the medical model and blamed her in part for the agency’s previous failures.

Dr. McCance-Katz currently serves as the chief medical officer at the Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals. She also is a professor of psychiatry and human behavior, and professor of behavioral and social sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I. She is expected to take up her new post as U.S. assistant secretary for mental health and substance use by the fall, according to a SAMHSA spokeperson.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

The Senate has confirmed Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, as the nation’s first mental health czar.

Dr. McCance-Katz, a psychiatrist, has focused her career largely on addiction treatment, particularly opioid abuse. This expertise has helped her receive the backing of several mental health organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

As leader of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Dr. McCance-Katz is expected to streamline more than 100 federal mental health agencies into a more effective system and to oversee a more than $3.5 billion budget annually. Having previously served as SAMHSA’s chief medical officer, Dr. McCance-Katz once again enters the fray surrounding the agency’s historically poor record of serving people with serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Dr. McCance-Katz stepped down from her chief medical officer role in 2015 after serving 2 years, later penning a piece criticizing the agency’s lack of commitment to understanding – much less implementing – psychiatric treatments based on a medical approach. Instead, she argued, SAMHSA favored non–evidence-based psychosocial interventions.

Despite this, Rep. Tim Murphy (R.-Penn.) – a clinical psychologist and the congressman most responsible for drafting the legislation that created the position – issued a highly critical statement when her nomination was announced earlier this year. He called into question Dr. McCance-Katz’s commitment to the medical model and blamed her in part for the agency’s previous failures.

Dr. McCance-Katz currently serves as the chief medical officer at the Rhode Island Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals. She also is a professor of psychiatry and human behavior, and professor of behavioral and social sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I. She is expected to take up her new post as U.S. assistant secretary for mental health and substance use by the fall, according to a SAMHSA spokeperson.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

Vemurafenib (Zelboraf) has been granted a supplemental new drug application and priority review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Erdheim-Chester disease with BRAF V600 mutation, according to a press release issued by Genentech.

The FDA is expected to make a decision on the indication by Dec. 7, 2017. Vemurafenib is approved for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation.

[email protected]

Vemurafenib (Zelboraf) has been granted a supplemental new drug application and priority review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Erdheim-Chester disease with BRAF V600 mutation, according to a press release issued by Genentech.

The FDA is expected to make a decision on the indication by Dec. 7, 2017. Vemurafenib is approved for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation.

[email protected]

Vemurafenib (Zelboraf) has been granted a supplemental new drug application and priority review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Erdheim-Chester disease with BRAF V600 mutation, according to a press release issued by Genentech.

The FDA is expected to make a decision on the indication by Dec. 7, 2017. Vemurafenib is approved for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation.

[email protected]

Question: Congressional proposals on medical tort reform can be expected to include the following, except:

A. A no-fault system akin to automobile no-fault insurance.

B. A cap on noneconomic damages.

C. “Safe-harbor” immunity against medical negligence.

D. Health courts in place of the judge/jury system to adjudicate claims.

E. Promotion of laws that encourage apologies and error disclosures.

Answer: A. Under the current Republican administration, one can expect legislative efforts at federal tort reform, especially given that Thomas E. Price, MD, the new secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services, is an orthopedic surgeon who has spoken passionately about defensive medicine, damage caps, health tribunals, and practice guidelines. As a former House representative for Georgia, Dr. Price has introduced several tort reform bills, so it is likely that any omnibus federal law will incorporate some of his proposals.¹

Over the decades, many states have gone ahead in enacting their own statutes while awaiting federal action. Iowa is the latest example. It recently passed legislation that included a noneconomic damages cap of $250,000, stronger expert witness standards, a certificate of merit in all medical liability lawsuits, and an expansion of its “candor” protections.² Additional reforms in other states include pretrial screening panels; arbitration; structured periodic payments in lieu of lump sum payments; penalties for frivolous suits; shortened statutes of limitations; making the loser bear all litigation costs; abolishing the collateral source rule, as well as joint and several liability; and limiting attorney contingency fees.

The best-known reform is a cap on noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering, that doesn’t abridge compensation for economic losses, i.e., medical expenses and lost wages. This provides some predictability because noneconomic damages are difficult to quantify, and jury sympathy may result in unrealistically high payments.

Interestingly, Dr. Price himself has not pushed for a federal cap on noneconomic damages, but other Republican bills have proposed a cap of $250,000. Many states, such as California, Kansas, and Texas, have seen their cap statutes withstand constitutional challenge. However, other jurisdictions, notably Georgia, Illinois, and Missouri, have ruled them unconstitutional.

California’s law, popularly known as MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act), came under renewed attack in 2015 with a wrongful death suit from hemorrhagic complications related to Coumadin (warfarin) use following heart surgery.³ The plaintiff’s constitutional challenges included violation of equal protection, due process, and the right to a jury trial, but these were essentially all grounded on an entitlement to recover additional noneconomic damages sufficient to cover attorney fees. The trial court had reduced her $1 million noneconomic damages to $250,000, as required under MICRA. A California court of appeal rejected her claim as being “contrary to many well-established legal principles.”

On the other hand, Florida’s Supreme Court recently held in a closely divided decision of 4-3 that the state’s caps were unconstitutional.⁴ The law limited noneconomic damages in malpractice cases to either $500,000 or $1 million if the injuries were catastrophic. The court ruled that the caps were arbitrary and unfairly hurt the most severely injured. It was unconvinced that they would reduce malpractice insurance rates; at any rate, there was no present crisis to justify the caps. The decision came 3 years after the court had struck down caps in a case of wrongful death.⁵

Three relative newcomers to the legal landscape – health courts, apology laws, and safe harbors – appear to be taking center stage in any forthcoming federal reform measures.
 

Health courts

Under this proposal, so-called health panels and tribunals would now adjudicate malpractice claims. Such health courts would dispense with the jury; further, regular judges would be replaced with specialized judges who would make binding determinations. In one version, a panel of medical experts would initially screen the complaint, followed by an administrative health care tribunal that would feature judges with medical expertise. These tribunals would issue binding rulings, but either party could appeal to a state court for a reversal.

In countries such as Scandinavia and New Zealand, these administrative compensation approaches are coupled to a no-fault system and appear to work well. However, unlike auto no-fault and workers’ compensation, the notion of medical no-fault has never caught on in the United States.

As currently construed, health courts evince dramatic departures from traditional rules of civil procedure. For one, the panels may render decisions before discovery has occurred, which would substantially limit a patient’s ability to learn the facts of what had happened to cause the injury. The panel may rely on a standard of “gross negligence” instead of “ordinary negligence,” requiring evidence not merely of substandard care but of recklessness. This would be a heavier burden on the victim, and could be expected to generate stiff opposition from the plaintiff’s bar. In addition, evidentiary rules may be modified, requiring that an appeal show with clear and convincing proof that the tribunal had erred.
 

Apology law

Disclosure of medical errors to the injured patient is believed to serve as an ethical and effective way of thwarting potential malpractice claims. Many states have enacted so-called apology laws that disallow statements of sympathy from being admitted into evidence. In some cases, these laws may assist the physician.

For example, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a surgeon’s comments and alleged admission of guilt (“I take full responsibility for this” regarding accidentally sectioning the common bile duct) were properly shielded from discovery by the state’s apology statute.⁶ Apology laws vary from state to state, and some do not shield admissions regarding causation of error or fault.

However, it is unclear if apology laws work. A recent study from Vanderbilt University reported that, for physicians who do not regularly perform surgery, apology laws actually increased the probability of facing a lawsuit.⁷ And for surgeons, apology laws do not have a substantial effect on the probability of facing a claim or the average payment made to resolve a claim.
 

Safe harbors

A proposal released by U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in June 2016 made reference to “safe harbors” from liability for those adhering to clinical practice guidelines. The Institute of Medicine defines practice guidelines as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.”

There are thousands of guidelines that have been developed by medical organizations and governmental agencies, as well as by insurance carriers, managed care organizations, and others. They purport to define the best evidence-based medicine, and if they were arrived at by the consensus of an authoritative body of experts, courts will tend to view them as reflective, though not necessarily dispositive, of customary medical standards.

Theoretically, adherence to guidelines could reduce the practice of defensive medicine and improve the quality of care. However, the available evidence does not indicate that guideline-based safe harbors will prove very effective in reducing malpractice claims: They are inapplicable in 85% of cases, and they have been estimated to eliminate defendants’ payments in less than 1% of claims.

Whether any form of tort reform emerges from the current Congress is as much about politics as it is about justice. It comes at an inopportune time, given the impasse over the health care debate. Still, on June 29, 2017, the U.S. House passed a medical liability reform bill with a vote of 218-210 along party lines that would cap noneconomic damages at $250,000, shorten the statute of limitations to 3 years after the date of injury, and abolish joint and several liability.⁸ The outlook in the U.S. Senate, however, is anything but certain.
 

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376(19):1806-8.

2. “Sweeping new tort reforms will protect Iowa physicians” AMA Wire. June 1, 2017.

3. Chan v. Curran, 237 CA 4th 601 (2015).

4. N. Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan, (Florida Supreme Court, decided June 8, 2017).

5. Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. U.S., 2014 Fla LEXIS 933 (No. SC 11-1148; March 13, 2014).

6. Estate of Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 440 (2013).

7. “Sorry is Never Enough: The Effect of State Apology Laws on Medical Malpractice Liability Risk” SSRN. 2016 Dec 10.

8. Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 (H.R. 1215).

Question: Congressional proposals on medical tort reform can be expected to include the following, except:

A. A no-fault system akin to automobile no-fault insurance.

B. A cap on noneconomic damages.

C. “Safe-harbor” immunity against medical negligence.

D. Health courts in place of the judge/jury system to adjudicate claims.

E. Promotion of laws that encourage apologies and error disclosures.

Answer: A. Under the current Republican administration, one can expect legislative efforts at federal tort reform, especially given that Thomas E. Price, MD, the new secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services, is an orthopedic surgeon who has spoken passionately about defensive medicine, damage caps, health tribunals, and practice guidelines. As a former House representative for Georgia, Dr. Price has introduced several tort reform bills, so it is likely that any omnibus federal law will incorporate some of his proposals.¹

Over the decades, many states have gone ahead in enacting their own statutes while awaiting federal action. Iowa is the latest example. It recently passed legislation that included a noneconomic damages cap of $250,000, stronger expert witness standards, a certificate of merit in all medical liability lawsuits, and an expansion of its “candor” protections.² Additional reforms in other states include pretrial screening panels; arbitration; structured periodic payments in lieu of lump sum payments; penalties for frivolous suits; shortened statutes of limitations; making the loser bear all litigation costs; abolishing the collateral source rule, as well as joint and several liability; and limiting attorney contingency fees.

The best-known reform is a cap on noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering, that doesn’t abridge compensation for economic losses, i.e., medical expenses and lost wages. This provides some predictability because noneconomic damages are difficult to quantify, and jury sympathy may result in unrealistically high payments.

Interestingly, Dr. Price himself has not pushed for a federal cap on noneconomic damages, but other Republican bills have proposed a cap of $250,000. Many states, such as California, Kansas, and Texas, have seen their cap statutes withstand constitutional challenge. However, other jurisdictions, notably Georgia, Illinois, and Missouri, have ruled them unconstitutional.

California’s law, popularly known as MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act), came under renewed attack in 2015 with a wrongful death suit from hemorrhagic complications related to Coumadin (warfarin) use following heart surgery.³ The plaintiff’s constitutional challenges included violation of equal protection, due process, and the right to a jury trial, but these were essentially all grounded on an entitlement to recover additional noneconomic damages sufficient to cover attorney fees. The trial court had reduced her $1 million noneconomic damages to $250,000, as required under MICRA. A California court of appeal rejected her claim as being “contrary to many well-established legal principles.”

On the other hand, Florida’s Supreme Court recently held in a closely divided decision of 4-3 that the state’s caps were unconstitutional.⁴ The law limited noneconomic damages in malpractice cases to either $500,000 or $1 million if the injuries were catastrophic. The court ruled that the caps were arbitrary and unfairly hurt the most severely injured. It was unconvinced that they would reduce malpractice insurance rates; at any rate, there was no present crisis to justify the caps. The decision came 3 years after the court had struck down caps in a case of wrongful death.⁵

Three relative newcomers to the legal landscape – health courts, apology laws, and safe harbors – appear to be taking center stage in any forthcoming federal reform measures.
 

Health courts

Under this proposal, so-called health panels and tribunals would now adjudicate malpractice claims. Such health courts would dispense with the jury; further, regular judges would be replaced with specialized judges who would make binding determinations. In one version, a panel of medical experts would initially screen the complaint, followed by an administrative health care tribunal that would feature judges with medical expertise. These tribunals would issue binding rulings, but either party could appeal to a state court for a reversal.

In countries such as Scandinavia and New Zealand, these administrative compensation approaches are coupled to a no-fault system and appear to work well. However, unlike auto no-fault and workers’ compensation, the notion of medical no-fault has never caught on in the United States.

As currently construed, health courts evince dramatic departures from traditional rules of civil procedure. For one, the panels may render decisions before discovery has occurred, which would substantially limit a patient’s ability to learn the facts of what had happened to cause the injury. The panel may rely on a standard of “gross negligence” instead of “ordinary negligence,” requiring evidence not merely of substandard care but of recklessness. This would be a heavier burden on the victim, and could be expected to generate stiff opposition from the plaintiff’s bar. In addition, evidentiary rules may be modified, requiring that an appeal show with clear and convincing proof that the tribunal had erred.
 

Apology law

Disclosure of medical errors to the injured patient is believed to serve as an ethical and effective way of thwarting potential malpractice claims. Many states have enacted so-called apology laws that disallow statements of sympathy from being admitted into evidence. In some cases, these laws may assist the physician.

For example, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a surgeon’s comments and alleged admission of guilt (“I take full responsibility for this” regarding accidentally sectioning the common bile duct) were properly shielded from discovery by the state’s apology statute.⁶ Apology laws vary from state to state, and some do not shield admissions regarding causation of error or fault.

However, it is unclear if apology laws work. A recent study from Vanderbilt University reported that, for physicians who do not regularly perform surgery, apology laws actually increased the probability of facing a lawsuit.⁷ And for surgeons, apology laws do not have a substantial effect on the probability of facing a claim or the average payment made to resolve a claim.
 

Safe harbors

A proposal released by U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in June 2016 made reference to “safe harbors” from liability for those adhering to clinical practice guidelines. The Institute of Medicine defines practice guidelines as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.”

There are thousands of guidelines that have been developed by medical organizations and governmental agencies, as well as by insurance carriers, managed care organizations, and others. They purport to define the best evidence-based medicine, and if they were arrived at by the consensus of an authoritative body of experts, courts will tend to view them as reflective, though not necessarily dispositive, of customary medical standards.

Theoretically, adherence to guidelines could reduce the practice of defensive medicine and improve the quality of care. However, the available evidence does not indicate that guideline-based safe harbors will prove very effective in reducing malpractice claims: They are inapplicable in 85% of cases, and they have been estimated to eliminate defendants’ payments in less than 1% of claims.

Whether any form of tort reform emerges from the current Congress is as much about politics as it is about justice. It comes at an inopportune time, given the impasse over the health care debate. Still, on June 29, 2017, the U.S. House passed a medical liability reform bill with a vote of 218-210 along party lines that would cap noneconomic damages at $250,000, shorten the statute of limitations to 3 years after the date of injury, and abolish joint and several liability.⁸ The outlook in the U.S. Senate, however, is anything but certain.
 

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376(19):1806-8.

2. “Sweeping new tort reforms will protect Iowa physicians” AMA Wire. June 1, 2017.

3. Chan v. Curran, 237 CA 4th 601 (2015).

4. N. Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan, (Florida Supreme Court, decided June 8, 2017).

5. Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. U.S., 2014 Fla LEXIS 933 (No. SC 11-1148; March 13, 2014).

6. Estate of Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 440 (2013).

7. “Sorry is Never Enough: The Effect of State Apology Laws on Medical Malpractice Liability Risk” SSRN. 2016 Dec 10.

8. Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 (H.R. 1215).

Question: Congressional proposals on medical tort reform can be expected to include the following, except:

A. A no-fault system akin to automobile no-fault insurance.

B. A cap on noneconomic damages.

C. “Safe-harbor” immunity against medical negligence.

D. Health courts in place of the judge/jury system to adjudicate claims.

E. Promotion of laws that encourage apologies and error disclosures.

Answer: A. Under the current Republican administration, one can expect legislative efforts at federal tort reform, especially given that Thomas E. Price, MD, the new secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services, is an orthopedic surgeon who has spoken passionately about defensive medicine, damage caps, health tribunals, and practice guidelines. As a former House representative for Georgia, Dr. Price has introduced several tort reform bills, so it is likely that any omnibus federal law will incorporate some of his proposals.¹

Over the decades, many states have gone ahead in enacting their own statutes while awaiting federal action. Iowa is the latest example. It recently passed legislation that included a noneconomic damages cap of $250,000, stronger expert witness standards, a certificate of merit in all medical liability lawsuits, and an expansion of its “candor” protections.² Additional reforms in other states include pretrial screening panels; arbitration; structured periodic payments in lieu of lump sum payments; penalties for frivolous suits; shortened statutes of limitations; making the loser bear all litigation costs; abolishing the collateral source rule, as well as joint and several liability; and limiting attorney contingency fees.

The best-known reform is a cap on noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering, that doesn’t abridge compensation for economic losses, i.e., medical expenses and lost wages. This provides some predictability because noneconomic damages are difficult to quantify, and jury sympathy may result in unrealistically high payments.

Interestingly, Dr. Price himself has not pushed for a federal cap on noneconomic damages, but other Republican bills have proposed a cap of $250,000. Many states, such as California, Kansas, and Texas, have seen their cap statutes withstand constitutional challenge. However, other jurisdictions, notably Georgia, Illinois, and Missouri, have ruled them unconstitutional.

California’s law, popularly known as MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act), came under renewed attack in 2015 with a wrongful death suit from hemorrhagic complications related to Coumadin (warfarin) use following heart surgery.³ The plaintiff’s constitutional challenges included violation of equal protection, due process, and the right to a jury trial, but these were essentially all grounded on an entitlement to recover additional noneconomic damages sufficient to cover attorney fees. The trial court had reduced her $1 million noneconomic damages to $250,000, as required under MICRA. A California court of appeal rejected her claim as being “contrary to many well-established legal principles.”

On the other hand, Florida’s Supreme Court recently held in a closely divided decision of 4-3 that the state’s caps were unconstitutional.⁴ The law limited noneconomic damages in malpractice cases to either $500,000 or $1 million if the injuries were catastrophic. The court ruled that the caps were arbitrary and unfairly hurt the most severely injured. It was unconvinced that they would reduce malpractice insurance rates; at any rate, there was no present crisis to justify the caps. The decision came 3 years after the court had struck down caps in a case of wrongful death.⁵

Three relative newcomers to the legal landscape – health courts, apology laws, and safe harbors – appear to be taking center stage in any forthcoming federal reform measures.
 

Health courts

Under this proposal, so-called health panels and tribunals would now adjudicate malpractice claims. Such health courts would dispense with the jury; further, regular judges would be replaced with specialized judges who would make binding determinations. In one version, a panel of medical experts would initially screen the complaint, followed by an administrative health care tribunal that would feature judges with medical expertise. These tribunals would issue binding rulings, but either party could appeal to a state court for a reversal.

In countries such as Scandinavia and New Zealand, these administrative compensation approaches are coupled to a no-fault system and appear to work well. However, unlike auto no-fault and workers’ compensation, the notion of medical no-fault has never caught on in the United States.

As currently construed, health courts evince dramatic departures from traditional rules of civil procedure. For one, the panels may render decisions before discovery has occurred, which would substantially limit a patient’s ability to learn the facts of what had happened to cause the injury. The panel may rely on a standard of “gross negligence” instead of “ordinary negligence,” requiring evidence not merely of substandard care but of recklessness. This would be a heavier burden on the victim, and could be expected to generate stiff opposition from the plaintiff’s bar. In addition, evidentiary rules may be modified, requiring that an appeal show with clear and convincing proof that the tribunal had erred.
 

Apology law

Disclosure of medical errors to the injured patient is believed to serve as an ethical and effective way of thwarting potential malpractice claims. Many states have enacted so-called apology laws that disallow statements of sympathy from being admitted into evidence. In some cases, these laws may assist the physician.

For example, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a surgeon’s comments and alleged admission of guilt (“I take full responsibility for this” regarding accidentally sectioning the common bile duct) were properly shielded from discovery by the state’s apology statute.⁶ Apology laws vary from state to state, and some do not shield admissions regarding causation of error or fault.

However, it is unclear if apology laws work. A recent study from Vanderbilt University reported that, for physicians who do not regularly perform surgery, apology laws actually increased the probability of facing a lawsuit.⁷ And for surgeons, apology laws do not have a substantial effect on the probability of facing a claim or the average payment made to resolve a claim.
 

Safe harbors

A proposal released by U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in June 2016 made reference to “safe harbors” from liability for those adhering to clinical practice guidelines. The Institute of Medicine defines practice guidelines as “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.”

There are thousands of guidelines that have been developed by medical organizations and governmental agencies, as well as by insurance carriers, managed care organizations, and others. They purport to define the best evidence-based medicine, and if they were arrived at by the consensus of an authoritative body of experts, courts will tend to view them as reflective, though not necessarily dispositive, of customary medical standards.

Theoretically, adherence to guidelines could reduce the practice of defensive medicine and improve the quality of care. However, the available evidence does not indicate that guideline-based safe harbors will prove very effective in reducing malpractice claims: They are inapplicable in 85% of cases, and they have been estimated to eliminate defendants’ payments in less than 1% of claims.

Whether any form of tort reform emerges from the current Congress is as much about politics as it is about justice. It comes at an inopportune time, given the impasse over the health care debate. Still, on June 29, 2017, the U.S. House passed a medical liability reform bill with a vote of 218-210 along party lines that would cap noneconomic damages at $250,000, shorten the statute of limitations to 3 years after the date of injury, and abolish joint and several liability.⁸ The outlook in the U.S. Senate, however, is anything but certain.
 

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2017 May 11;376(19):1806-8.

2. “Sweeping new tort reforms will protect Iowa physicians” AMA Wire. June 1, 2017.

3. Chan v. Curran, 237 CA 4th 601 (2015).

4. N. Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan, (Florida Supreme Court, decided June 8, 2017).

5. Estate of Michelle Evette McCall v. U.S., 2014 Fla LEXIS 933 (No. SC 11-1148; March 13, 2014).

6. Estate of Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc., 135 Ohio St.3d 440 (2013).

7. “Sorry is Never Enough: The Effect of State Apology Laws on Medical Malpractice Liability Risk” SSRN. 2016 Dec 10.

8. Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 (H.R. 1215).

CHICAGO – Screening infants with a port-wine stain for Sturge-Weber syndrome (SWS) with a magnetic resonance imaging brain scan had a 23% false-negative rate and actually delayed seizure detection, according to a recent study.

When infants with port-wine stains receive a dermatology consult, they may also be screened for SWS by means of MRI and by electroencephalography, particularly if their lesion phenotype puts them at higher risk for SWS. But the accuracy and benefit of the screenings has not been well established, said Michaela Zallmann, MD, the study’s first author. Hemifacial lesions that involve both the forehead and cheek and median lesions that are centered around the facial midline are both considered high-risk lesions.

Dr. Zallmann, a dermatologist at Monash University and the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, and her coinvestigators examined data on 126 patients with facial port-wine stains who came to a laser clinic over a 12-month period. Of these, 32 (25.4%) had a high-risk port-wine stain, and 9 of those 32 (28.1%) had a capillary-venous malformation characteristic of SWS. Of the high-risk patients, 14 received a screening MRI or EEG before having had a first seizure. Of those 14 scans, 1 resulted in a diagnosis of SWS; of the 13 patients with a negative MRI screen, 3 (23.1%) were later found to have SWS when their parents or caregivers detected seizures. Thus, a total of four of the high-risk infants who were screened eventually were diagnosed with SWS.

Of the 18 high-risk patients who did not receive a screening MRI, 3 (16.7%) developed seizures, while 2 (11.1%) were seizure free but developed glaucoma severe enough to require treatment. One patient who was also seizure free developed an autism spectrum disorder.

Two patients who were in the high-risk group received screening EEGs that detected abnormalities that were not yet clinically evident. These included sub-clinical seizures and posterior-quadrant focal slowing. Both of these patients had initial negative screening MRIs.

Scanning early in life, using inappropriate imaging protocols, and having an inexperienced radiologist were all factors associated with a higher probability of false negative screening MRI, according to the researchers’ analysis, which was presented in a poster session at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

All of the false negative MRIs in the study cohort were conducted in infants younger than 9 weeks old. But whether it is useful to reserve imaging for later in infancy is debatable. “While later imaging may have improved sensitivity, 75% of infants with SWS will have already had their first seizure by 12 months of age,” wrote Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues.

Of the infants involved in the study, two of the three patients with false negative scans did not receive a referral to a neurologist, nor did their parents receive seizure education. “False reassurance may delay seizure detection,” Dr. Zallmann said.

For infants with positive MRIs who went on to develop seizures, the mean age of when they experienced their first documented seizure was 10 weeks. For those who did not receive an MRI, the mean age was 14 months, compared with 28 months for patients who had received a false negative MRI.

In discussing the findings, Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues made the point that early referral to a pediatric neurologist is important, especially for infants with the higher-risk port-wine stain patterns of hemifacial and median lesions. Seizure education can help parents detect the often subtle signs of seizures in infants with SWS, which can include staring spells, subtle limb twitching, and lip smacking.

The fact that seizures were detected an average of 14 months later in patients with negative screening MRIs may mean that such subtle signs were missed. “False reassurance may delay the recognition and treatment of seizures and impact neurodevelopmental outcomes,” Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues wrote in the abstract that accompanied the poster.

The study, while small, helps fill in some knowledge gaps, the researchers pointed out; they noted that there is no consensus on what level or type of facial involvement warrants screening, which protocols are best for MRI and EEG, or even whether the screening will improve seizure detection or outcomes.

“Currently there is no evidence that screening improves neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they said. “Conversely, there is a role for early neurological referral, symptom education, and potentially of EEGs in the prevention of complications related to SWS.”

Dr. Zallmann reported no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Screening infants with a port-wine stain for Sturge-Weber syndrome (SWS) with a magnetic resonance imaging brain scan had a 23% false-negative rate and actually delayed seizure detection, according to a recent study.

When infants with port-wine stains receive a dermatology consult, they may also be screened for SWS by means of MRI and by electroencephalography, particularly if their lesion phenotype puts them at higher risk for SWS. But the accuracy and benefit of the screenings has not been well established, said Michaela Zallmann, MD, the study’s first author. Hemifacial lesions that involve both the forehead and cheek and median lesions that are centered around the facial midline are both considered high-risk lesions.

Dr. Zallmann, a dermatologist at Monash University and the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, and her coinvestigators examined data on 126 patients with facial port-wine stains who came to a laser clinic over a 12-month period. Of these, 32 (25.4%) had a high-risk port-wine stain, and 9 of those 32 (28.1%) had a capillary-venous malformation characteristic of SWS. Of the high-risk patients, 14 received a screening MRI or EEG before having had a first seizure. Of those 14 scans, 1 resulted in a diagnosis of SWS; of the 13 patients with a negative MRI screen, 3 (23.1%) were later found to have SWS when their parents or caregivers detected seizures. Thus, a total of four of the high-risk infants who were screened eventually were diagnosed with SWS.

Of the 18 high-risk patients who did not receive a screening MRI, 3 (16.7%) developed seizures, while 2 (11.1%) were seizure free but developed glaucoma severe enough to require treatment. One patient who was also seizure free developed an autism spectrum disorder.

Two patients who were in the high-risk group received screening EEGs that detected abnormalities that were not yet clinically evident. These included sub-clinical seizures and posterior-quadrant focal slowing. Both of these patients had initial negative screening MRIs.

Scanning early in life, using inappropriate imaging protocols, and having an inexperienced radiologist were all factors associated with a higher probability of false negative screening MRI, according to the researchers’ analysis, which was presented in a poster session at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

All of the false negative MRIs in the study cohort were conducted in infants younger than 9 weeks old. But whether it is useful to reserve imaging for later in infancy is debatable. “While later imaging may have improved sensitivity, 75% of infants with SWS will have already had their first seizure by 12 months of age,” wrote Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues.

Of the infants involved in the study, two of the three patients with false negative scans did not receive a referral to a neurologist, nor did their parents receive seizure education. “False reassurance may delay seizure detection,” Dr. Zallmann said.

For infants with positive MRIs who went on to develop seizures, the mean age of when they experienced their first documented seizure was 10 weeks. For those who did not receive an MRI, the mean age was 14 months, compared with 28 months for patients who had received a false negative MRI.

In discussing the findings, Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues made the point that early referral to a pediatric neurologist is important, especially for infants with the higher-risk port-wine stain patterns of hemifacial and median lesions. Seizure education can help parents detect the often subtle signs of seizures in infants with SWS, which can include staring spells, subtle limb twitching, and lip smacking.

The fact that seizures were detected an average of 14 months later in patients with negative screening MRIs may mean that such subtle signs were missed. “False reassurance may delay the recognition and treatment of seizures and impact neurodevelopmental outcomes,” Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues wrote in the abstract that accompanied the poster.

The study, while small, helps fill in some knowledge gaps, the researchers pointed out; they noted that there is no consensus on what level or type of facial involvement warrants screening, which protocols are best for MRI and EEG, or even whether the screening will improve seizure detection or outcomes.

“Currently there is no evidence that screening improves neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they said. “Conversely, there is a role for early neurological referral, symptom education, and potentially of EEGs in the prevention of complications related to SWS.”

Dr. Zallmann reported no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

CHICAGO – Screening infants with a port-wine stain for Sturge-Weber syndrome (SWS) with a magnetic resonance imaging brain scan had a 23% false-negative rate and actually delayed seizure detection, according to a recent study.

When infants with port-wine stains receive a dermatology consult, they may also be screened for SWS by means of MRI and by electroencephalography, particularly if their lesion phenotype puts them at higher risk for SWS. But the accuracy and benefit of the screenings has not been well established, said Michaela Zallmann, MD, the study’s first author. Hemifacial lesions that involve both the forehead and cheek and median lesions that are centered around the facial midline are both considered high-risk lesions.

Dr. Zallmann, a dermatologist at Monash University and the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, and her coinvestigators examined data on 126 patients with facial port-wine stains who came to a laser clinic over a 12-month period. Of these, 32 (25.4%) had a high-risk port-wine stain, and 9 of those 32 (28.1%) had a capillary-venous malformation characteristic of SWS. Of the high-risk patients, 14 received a screening MRI or EEG before having had a first seizure. Of those 14 scans, 1 resulted in a diagnosis of SWS; of the 13 patients with a negative MRI screen, 3 (23.1%) were later found to have SWS when their parents or caregivers detected seizures. Thus, a total of four of the high-risk infants who were screened eventually were diagnosed with SWS.

Of the 18 high-risk patients who did not receive a screening MRI, 3 (16.7%) developed seizures, while 2 (11.1%) were seizure free but developed glaucoma severe enough to require treatment. One patient who was also seizure free developed an autism spectrum disorder.

Two patients who were in the high-risk group received screening EEGs that detected abnormalities that were not yet clinically evident. These included sub-clinical seizures and posterior-quadrant focal slowing. Both of these patients had initial negative screening MRIs.

Scanning early in life, using inappropriate imaging protocols, and having an inexperienced radiologist were all factors associated with a higher probability of false negative screening MRI, according to the researchers’ analysis, which was presented in a poster session at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology.

All of the false negative MRIs in the study cohort were conducted in infants younger than 9 weeks old. But whether it is useful to reserve imaging for later in infancy is debatable. “While later imaging may have improved sensitivity, 75% of infants with SWS will have already had their first seizure by 12 months of age,” wrote Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues.

Of the infants involved in the study, two of the three patients with false negative scans did not receive a referral to a neurologist, nor did their parents receive seizure education. “False reassurance may delay seizure detection,” Dr. Zallmann said.

For infants with positive MRIs who went on to develop seizures, the mean age of when they experienced their first documented seizure was 10 weeks. For those who did not receive an MRI, the mean age was 14 months, compared with 28 months for patients who had received a false negative MRI.

In discussing the findings, Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues made the point that early referral to a pediatric neurologist is important, especially for infants with the higher-risk port-wine stain patterns of hemifacial and median lesions. Seizure education can help parents detect the often subtle signs of seizures in infants with SWS, which can include staring spells, subtle limb twitching, and lip smacking.

The fact that seizures were detected an average of 14 months later in patients with negative screening MRIs may mean that such subtle signs were missed. “False reassurance may delay the recognition and treatment of seizures and impact neurodevelopmental outcomes,” Dr. Zallmann and her colleagues wrote in the abstract that accompanied the poster.

The study, while small, helps fill in some knowledge gaps, the researchers pointed out; they noted that there is no consensus on what level or type of facial involvement warrants screening, which protocols are best for MRI and EEG, or even whether the screening will improve seizure detection or outcomes.

“Currently there is no evidence that screening improves neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they said. “Conversely, there is a role for early neurological referral, symptom education, and potentially of EEGs in the prevention of complications related to SWS.”

Dr. Zallmann reported no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

COLORADO SPRINGS – Significant variability exists between hospitals in Washington state in their rates of invasive mediastinal staging for lung cancer, Farhood Farjah, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Western Thoracic Surgical Association.

“We found evidence of a fivefold variation in hospital-level rates of invasive mediastinal staging not explained by chance or case mix,” according to Dr. Farjah of the University of Washington, Seattle.

[email protected]

COLORADO SPRINGS – Significant variability exists between hospitals in Washington state in their rates of invasive mediastinal staging for lung cancer, Farhood Farjah, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Western Thoracic Surgical Association.

“We found evidence of a fivefold variation in hospital-level rates of invasive mediastinal staging not explained by chance or case mix,” according to Dr. Farjah of the University of Washington, Seattle.

[email protected]

COLORADO SPRINGS – Significant variability exists between hospitals in Washington state in their rates of invasive mediastinal staging for lung cancer, Farhood Farjah, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Western Thoracic Surgical Association.

“We found evidence of a fivefold variation in hospital-level rates of invasive mediastinal staging not explained by chance or case mix,” according to Dr. Farjah of the University of Washington, Seattle.

[email protected]

PARIS – Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the self-expanding Evolut R device in high-surgical-risk patients with failing surgical aortic bioprostheses showed promising 30-day safety and effectiveness results in the ongoing VIVA study, Ran Kornowski, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We had a lot of patients with small, failing valves in this study. Despite this, our valve gradients postprocedure were very, very low. This means to me that this platform is very well suited to deal with valve-in-valve procedures in general and with small bioprosthetic valves in particular,” observed Dr. Kornowski, chairman of the department of cardiology at Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikva, Israel, and president of the Israel Heart Society.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

• All-cause mortality occurred in 2.5% of patients.

• The 30-day stroke rate was 3%, with no disabling strokes.

• Major vascular complications occurred in 6.5% of the VIVA patients.

• Major bleeding occurred in 7%, minor bleeding in 7.9%. There were no cases of life-threatening bleeding.

• The incidence of Stage I acute kidney injury was rare, at 0.5%.

• Seven percent of patients received a permanent pacemaker.

• Eighty-seven percent of patients had no postprocedure paravalvular regurgitation (PVR), 11.4 had mild PVR, and 1.5% had moderate PVR.

• NYHA classification improved from baseline to 30 days in 81% of patients. At 30 days, 93% of participants were NYHA class I or II.

Turning to echocardiographic findings, the mean gradient improved from a mean baseline of 31.8 mm Hg to 12.6 mm Hg, while the effective orifice area rose from 1.0 to 1.5 cm². The magnitude of both improvements was greater for patients with stenosis as their mode of valve failure.

“With the Evolut R, we aim for higher implantations – not more than about 4 mm below the ring – because going deeper could bring about higher gradients and functional deterioration later on,” the cardiologist explained.

The 1-year primary efficacy endpoint – lack of significant aortic stenosis as defined by a mean gradient less than 40 mm Hg – will be reported soon. The VIVA study is sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Kornowski reported serving as a consultant to the company.

[email protected]

PARIS – Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the self-expanding Evolut R device in high-surgical-risk patients with failing surgical aortic bioprostheses showed promising 30-day safety and effectiveness results in the ongoing VIVA study, Ran Kornowski, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We had a lot of patients with small, failing valves in this study. Despite this, our valve gradients postprocedure were very, very low. This means to me that this platform is very well suited to deal with valve-in-valve procedures in general and with small bioprosthetic valves in particular,” observed Dr. Kornowski, chairman of the department of cardiology at Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikva, Israel, and president of the Israel Heart Society.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

• All-cause mortality occurred in 2.5% of patients.

• The 30-day stroke rate was 3%, with no disabling strokes.

• Major vascular complications occurred in 6.5% of the VIVA patients.

• Major bleeding occurred in 7%, minor bleeding in 7.9%. There were no cases of life-threatening bleeding.

• The incidence of Stage I acute kidney injury was rare, at 0.5%.

• Seven percent of patients received a permanent pacemaker.

• Eighty-seven percent of patients had no postprocedure paravalvular regurgitation (PVR), 11.4 had mild PVR, and 1.5% had moderate PVR.

• NYHA classification improved from baseline to 30 days in 81% of patients. At 30 days, 93% of participants were NYHA class I or II.

Turning to echocardiographic findings, the mean gradient improved from a mean baseline of 31.8 mm Hg to 12.6 mm Hg, while the effective orifice area rose from 1.0 to 1.5 cm². The magnitude of both improvements was greater for patients with stenosis as their mode of valve failure.

“With the Evolut R, we aim for higher implantations – not more than about 4 mm below the ring – because going deeper could bring about higher gradients and functional deterioration later on,” the cardiologist explained.

The 1-year primary efficacy endpoint – lack of significant aortic stenosis as defined by a mean gradient less than 40 mm Hg – will be reported soon. The VIVA study is sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Kornowski reported serving as a consultant to the company.

[email protected]

PARIS – Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the self-expanding Evolut R device in high-surgical-risk patients with failing surgical aortic bioprostheses showed promising 30-day safety and effectiveness results in the ongoing VIVA study, Ran Kornowski, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We had a lot of patients with small, failing valves in this study. Despite this, our valve gradients postprocedure were very, very low. This means to me that this platform is very well suited to deal with valve-in-valve procedures in general and with small bioprosthetic valves in particular,” observed Dr. Kornowski, chairman of the department of cardiology at Rabin Medical Center in Petah Tikva, Israel, and president of the Israel Heart Society.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

• All-cause mortality occurred in 2.5% of patients.

• The 30-day stroke rate was 3%, with no disabling strokes.

• Major vascular complications occurred in 6.5% of the VIVA patients.

• Major bleeding occurred in 7%, minor bleeding in 7.9%. There were no cases of life-threatening bleeding.

• The incidence of Stage I acute kidney injury was rare, at 0.5%.

• Seven percent of patients received a permanent pacemaker.

• Eighty-seven percent of patients had no postprocedure paravalvular regurgitation (PVR), 11.4 had mild PVR, and 1.5% had moderate PVR.

• NYHA classification improved from baseline to 30 days in 81% of patients. At 30 days, 93% of participants were NYHA class I or II.

Turning to echocardiographic findings, the mean gradient improved from a mean baseline of 31.8 mm Hg to 12.6 mm Hg, while the effective orifice area rose from 1.0 to 1.5 cm². The magnitude of both improvements was greater for patients with stenosis as their mode of valve failure.

“With the Evolut R, we aim for higher implantations – not more than about 4 mm below the ring – because going deeper could bring about higher gradients and functional deterioration later on,” the cardiologist explained.

The 1-year primary efficacy endpoint – lack of significant aortic stenosis as defined by a mean gradient less than 40 mm Hg – will be reported soon. The VIVA study is sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Kornowski reported serving as a consultant to the company.

[email protected]

Cruising above the earth at 37,000 feet on the way back from vacation, my mind starts wandering. The impending reality of returning to work is setting in, and I can’t help but reflect on how the experience of a weary traveler trying to get home is like that of a weary patient trying to navigate modern health care. As it turns out, there are more than a few similarities, and that is not necessarily a good thing.

The modern airline industry is often cited by experts as a model for safety, efficiency, and innovation, though just a few decades ago this wasn’t the case. Several factors (for example, catastrophic crashes; the events of September 11th, 2001; the economic downturn) forced airlines to make radical improvements in how they operated – many of which I am quite thankful for as I gaze down upon America’s heartland from my window seat. Still, there are many who would say that in spite of (and sometimes because of) these improvements, air travel is the worst it’s ever been; airport lines are longer than ever, costs have steadily increased, and customer service has become little more than a quaint idea from a bygone era.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

Cruising above the earth at 37,000 feet on the way back from vacation, my mind starts wandering. The impending reality of returning to work is setting in, and I can’t help but reflect on how the experience of a weary traveler trying to get home is like that of a weary patient trying to navigate modern health care. As it turns out, there are more than a few similarities, and that is not necessarily a good thing.

The modern airline industry is often cited by experts as a model for safety, efficiency, and innovation, though just a few decades ago this wasn’t the case. Several factors (for example, catastrophic crashes; the events of September 11th, 2001; the economic downturn) forced airlines to make radical improvements in how they operated – many of which I am quite thankful for as I gaze down upon America’s heartland from my window seat. Still, there are many who would say that in spite of (and sometimes because of) these improvements, air travel is the worst it’s ever been; airport lines are longer than ever, costs have steadily increased, and customer service has become little more than a quaint idea from a bygone era.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

Cruising above the earth at 37,000 feet on the way back from vacation, my mind starts wandering. The impending reality of returning to work is setting in, and I can’t help but reflect on how the experience of a weary traveler trying to get home is like that of a weary patient trying to navigate modern health care. As it turns out, there are more than a few similarities, and that is not necessarily a good thing.

The modern airline industry is often cited by experts as a model for safety, efficiency, and innovation, though just a few decades ago this wasn’t the case. Several factors (for example, catastrophic crashes; the events of September 11th, 2001; the economic downturn) forced airlines to make radical improvements in how they operated – many of which I am quite thankful for as I gaze down upon America’s heartland from my window seat. Still, there are many who would say that in spite of (and sometimes because of) these improvements, air travel is the worst it’s ever been; airport lines are longer than ever, costs have steadily increased, and customer service has become little more than a quaint idea from a bygone era.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and clinical informaticist for Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. He is also a partner in EHR Practice Consultants, a firm that aids physicians in adopting electronic health records. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

The Diagnosis: Trichofolliculoma

Microscopic examination revealed a dilated cystic follicle that communicated with the skin surface (Figure). The follicle was lined with squamous epithelium and surrounded by numerous secondary follicles, many of which contained a hair shaft. A diagnosis of trichofolliculoma was made.

Clinically, the differential diagnosis of a flesh-colored papule on the scalp with prominent follicle includes dilated pore of Winer, epidermoid cyst, pilar sheath acanthoma, and trichoepithelioma.^1,2 Multiple hair shafts present in a single follicle may be seen in pili multigemini, tufted folliculitis, trichostasis spinulosa, and trichofolliculoma. On histopathologic examination, a dilated central follicle surrounded with smaller secondary follicles was identified, consistent with trichofolliculoma.

Trichofolliculoma is a rare follicular hamartoma typically occurring on the face, scalp, or trunk as a solitary papule or nodule due to the proliferation of abnormal hair follicle stem cells.^3,4 It may present as a flesh-colored nodule with a central pore that may drain sebum or contain white vellus hairs. Trichofolliculoma is considered a benign entity, despite one case report of malignant transformation.⁵ Biopsy is diagnostic and no further treatment is needed. Recurrence rarely occurs at the primary site after surgical excision, which may be performed for cosmetic purposes or to alleviate functional impairment.

The Diagnosis: Trichofolliculoma

Microscopic examination revealed a dilated cystic follicle that communicated with the skin surface (Figure). The follicle was lined with squamous epithelium and surrounded by numerous secondary follicles, many of which contained a hair shaft. A diagnosis of trichofolliculoma was made.

Clinically, the differential diagnosis of a flesh-colored papule on the scalp with prominent follicle includes dilated pore of Winer, epidermoid cyst, pilar sheath acanthoma, and trichoepithelioma.^1,2 Multiple hair shafts present in a single follicle may be seen in pili multigemini, tufted folliculitis, trichostasis spinulosa, and trichofolliculoma. On histopathologic examination, a dilated central follicle surrounded with smaller secondary follicles was identified, consistent with trichofolliculoma.

Trichofolliculoma is a rare follicular hamartoma typically occurring on the face, scalp, or trunk as a solitary papule or nodule due to the proliferation of abnormal hair follicle stem cells.^3,4 It may present as a flesh-colored nodule with a central pore that may drain sebum or contain white vellus hairs. Trichofolliculoma is considered a benign entity, despite one case report of malignant transformation.⁵ Biopsy is diagnostic and no further treatment is needed. Recurrence rarely occurs at the primary site after surgical excision, which may be performed for cosmetic purposes or to alleviate functional impairment.

The Diagnosis: Trichofolliculoma

Microscopic examination revealed a dilated cystic follicle that communicated with the skin surface (Figure). The follicle was lined with squamous epithelium and surrounded by numerous secondary follicles, many of which contained a hair shaft. A diagnosis of trichofolliculoma was made.

Clinically, the differential diagnosis of a flesh-colored papule on the scalp with prominent follicle includes dilated pore of Winer, epidermoid cyst, pilar sheath acanthoma, and trichoepithelioma.^1,2 Multiple hair shafts present in a single follicle may be seen in pili multigemini, tufted folliculitis, trichostasis spinulosa, and trichofolliculoma. On histopathologic examination, a dilated central follicle surrounded with smaller secondary follicles was identified, consistent with trichofolliculoma.

Trichofolliculoma is a rare follicular hamartoma typically occurring on the face, scalp, or trunk as a solitary papule or nodule due to the proliferation of abnormal hair follicle stem cells.^3,4 It may present as a flesh-colored nodule with a central pore that may drain sebum or contain white vellus hairs. Trichofolliculoma is considered a benign entity, despite one case report of malignant transformation.⁵ Biopsy is diagnostic and no further treatment is needed. Recurrence rarely occurs at the primary site after surgical excision, which may be performed for cosmetic purposes or to alleviate functional impairment.

Incidence of campylobacteriosis increased significantly in the United States from 2004 to 2012, according to Aimee Geissler, PhD, and her associates.

A total of 303,520 cases of campylobacteriosis were reported during the study period, with the average incidence rate growing from 10.5 cases per 100,000 persons during 2004-2006 to 12.7 cases per 100,000 persons during 2010-2012, an increase of 21%. The median number of Camplyobacter outbreaks doubled from 28 during 2004-2006 to 56 during 2010-2012; in total, 347 outbreaks were reported. Campylobacteriosis is the nation’s most common bacterial diarrheal illness.

De Wood, Pooley, USDA, ARS, EMU/Wikimedia Commons/Public domain

[email protected]

Incidence of campylobacteriosis increased significantly in the United States from 2004 to 2012, according to Aimee Geissler, PhD, and her associates.

A total of 303,520 cases of campylobacteriosis were reported during the study period, with the average incidence rate growing from 10.5 cases per 100,000 persons during 2004-2006 to 12.7 cases per 100,000 persons during 2010-2012, an increase of 21%. The median number of Camplyobacter outbreaks doubled from 28 during 2004-2006 to 56 during 2010-2012; in total, 347 outbreaks were reported. Campylobacteriosis is the nation’s most common bacterial diarrheal illness.

De Wood, Pooley, USDA, ARS, EMU/Wikimedia Commons/Public domain

[email protected]

Incidence of campylobacteriosis increased significantly in the United States from 2004 to 2012, according to Aimee Geissler, PhD, and her associates.

A total of 303,520 cases of campylobacteriosis were reported during the study period, with the average incidence rate growing from 10.5 cases per 100,000 persons during 2004-2006 to 12.7 cases per 100,000 persons during 2010-2012, an increase of 21%. The median number of Camplyobacter outbreaks doubled from 28 during 2004-2006 to 56 during 2010-2012; in total, 347 outbreaks were reported. Campylobacteriosis is the nation’s most common bacterial diarrheal illness.

De Wood, Pooley, USDA, ARS, EMU/Wikimedia Commons/Public domain

[email protected]

Lack of access to psychiatric services has been a challenge for decades, resulting in significant delays to treatment with associated consequences in reduced quality of care, low patient satisfaction, poor patient outcomes, and higher costs.

The problem is exacerbated by a growing shortage of psychiatrists, an increased demand for psychiatric services, and inadequate payment rates. The result is a crisis that is resonating throughout the U.S. health care system.

As many know, a few months ago, the Medical Director Institute of the National Council for Behavioral Health, in partnership with the American Psychiatric Association, convened an expert panel to develop a report responding to this evolving quandary. The findings of our 60-page report, “The Psychiatric Shortage: Causes and Solutions,” suggest that psychiatry is uniquely positioned to address the issues that face our specialty.

1. Workforce development

Psychiatrists come out of residency training without the skills they need to practice in today’s rapidly evolving health care environment. We need better preparation in measurement-based care, telepsychiatry, collaborative care, and other methods of efficient team collaboration with primary care.

Funding for graduate medical education and training programs must be expanded with an infusion of new funding – not only for psychiatrists – but also for psychiatric nurse practitioners and psychiatric physician assistants.

2. Improved efficiency of service delivery

Providers of psychiatric services in outpatient psychiatric programs face a cramped daily routine with increasingly briefer appointments scheduled back-to-back that limit in-depth clinical assessment, collaboration with other members of the treatment team, and consultation with primary care providers outside of the program. Such a schedule leads to lower-quality care.

Psychiatrists must have the same level of nurse and paraprofessional assistance and support provided to other medical specialties. In addition, regulations that prevent the broader use of telepsychiatry must be revised. All behavioral health providers should implement open access scheduling, a proven modality for reducing missed appointments.

3. Reducing burdensome regulations and confidentiality restrictions

Excessive documentation requirements, especially necessarily detailed, lengthy assessments and treatment must be revised and 42 CFR Part 2 must be made consistent with HIPAA requirements.

4. Broader implementation of innovative models

The shortage of psychiatrists will only worsen with the integration of primary care and behavioral health, and the shift to Accountable Care Organizations as part of health care reform (which, as of this writing, faces much uncertainty). Thanks to more efficient screening for mental health and substance use disorders now occurring in primary care, there will be growing demand for access to psychiatric services.

The collaborative care model for providing psychiatric services should be implemented throughout primary care. Behavioral health organizations must develop their own version of collaborative care that targets the limited psychiatric resource where it is most needed by using measurement-based care and collaborating more effectively with other team members.

5. Adoption of novel reimbursement methods

Inappropriately low rates limit access to care. Today, 40% of psychiatrists choose cash-only private practices, the second-highest among medical specialties after dermatologists, and 75% of provider organizations employing psychiatrists report that they lose money on their psychiatric services. At the same time, the shrinking number of inpatient psychiatric services has become a significant obstacle to improved access. Beds have been eliminated because of lower rates of reimbursement, compared with other medical-surgical procedures and difficulty in recruiting psychiatrists to staff inpatient units.

Psychiatric service rates must be reset to be consistent with the actual cost of providing care. Prospective payment models like Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics should be expanded, and bundled payments for services like collaborative care and complex care should be covered by payers.

The Medical Director Institute recommends these solutions so that access to psychiatric services does not remain a barrier to the overall success of health care reform and service delivery improving the health of Americans. Multiple stakeholders – federal and state governments, payers, providers, provider trade associations, and advocates – must take action within their spheres of influence in the design, funding, regulation, and delivery of behavioral health care to improve access to psychiatric services. Such broad collaboration is imperative for our patients to get the care they need.

Dr. Parks is the medical director for the National Council for Behavioral Health. He practices psychiatry on an outpatient basis at Family Health Center, a federally funded community health center established to expand services to uninsured and underinsured patients in central Missouri. He also holds the position of Distinguished Research Professor of Science at the University of Missouri–St. Louis and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

Lack of access to psychiatric services has been a challenge for decades, resulting in significant delays to treatment with associated consequences in reduced quality of care, low patient satisfaction, poor patient outcomes, and higher costs.

The problem is exacerbated by a growing shortage of psychiatrists, an increased demand for psychiatric services, and inadequate payment rates. The result is a crisis that is resonating throughout the U.S. health care system.

As many know, a few months ago, the Medical Director Institute of the National Council for Behavioral Health, in partnership with the American Psychiatric Association, convened an expert panel to develop a report responding to this evolving quandary. The findings of our 60-page report, “The Psychiatric Shortage: Causes and Solutions,” suggest that psychiatry is uniquely positioned to address the issues that face our specialty.

1. Workforce development

Psychiatrists come out of residency training without the skills they need to practice in today’s rapidly evolving health care environment. We need better preparation in measurement-based care, telepsychiatry, collaborative care, and other methods of efficient team collaboration with primary care.

Funding for graduate medical education and training programs must be expanded with an infusion of new funding – not only for psychiatrists – but also for psychiatric nurse practitioners and psychiatric physician assistants.

2. Improved efficiency of service delivery

Providers of psychiatric services in outpatient psychiatric programs face a cramped daily routine with increasingly briefer appointments scheduled back-to-back that limit in-depth clinical assessment, collaboration with other members of the treatment team, and consultation with primary care providers outside of the program. Such a schedule leads to lower-quality care.

Psychiatrists must have the same level of nurse and paraprofessional assistance and support provided to other medical specialties. In addition, regulations that prevent the broader use of telepsychiatry must be revised. All behavioral health providers should implement open access scheduling, a proven modality for reducing missed appointments.

3. Reducing burdensome regulations and confidentiality restrictions

Excessive documentation requirements, especially necessarily detailed, lengthy assessments and treatment must be revised and 42 CFR Part 2 must be made consistent with HIPAA requirements.

4. Broader implementation of innovative models

The shortage of psychiatrists will only worsen with the integration of primary care and behavioral health, and the shift to Accountable Care Organizations as part of health care reform (which, as of this writing, faces much uncertainty). Thanks to more efficient screening for mental health and substance use disorders now occurring in primary care, there will be growing demand for access to psychiatric services.

The collaborative care model for providing psychiatric services should be implemented throughout primary care. Behavioral health organizations must develop their own version of collaborative care that targets the limited psychiatric resource where it is most needed by using measurement-based care and collaborating more effectively with other team members.

5. Adoption of novel reimbursement methods

Inappropriately low rates limit access to care. Today, 40% of psychiatrists choose cash-only private practices, the second-highest among medical specialties after dermatologists, and 75% of provider organizations employing psychiatrists report that they lose money on their psychiatric services. At the same time, the shrinking number of inpatient psychiatric services has become a significant obstacle to improved access. Beds have been eliminated because of lower rates of reimbursement, compared with other medical-surgical procedures and difficulty in recruiting psychiatrists to staff inpatient units.

Psychiatric service rates must be reset to be consistent with the actual cost of providing care. Prospective payment models like Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics should be expanded, and bundled payments for services like collaborative care and complex care should be covered by payers.

The Medical Director Institute recommends these solutions so that access to psychiatric services does not remain a barrier to the overall success of health care reform and service delivery improving the health of Americans. Multiple stakeholders – federal and state governments, payers, providers, provider trade associations, and advocates – must take action within their spheres of influence in the design, funding, regulation, and delivery of behavioral health care to improve access to psychiatric services. Such broad collaboration is imperative for our patients to get the care they need.

Dr. Parks is the medical director for the National Council for Behavioral Health. He practices psychiatry on an outpatient basis at Family Health Center, a federally funded community health center established to expand services to uninsured and underinsured patients in central Missouri. He also holds the position of Distinguished Research Professor of Science at the University of Missouri–St. Louis and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

Lack of access to psychiatric services has been a challenge for decades, resulting in significant delays to treatment with associated consequences in reduced quality of care, low patient satisfaction, poor patient outcomes, and higher costs.

The problem is exacerbated by a growing shortage of psychiatrists, an increased demand for psychiatric services, and inadequate payment rates. The result is a crisis that is resonating throughout the U.S. health care system.

As many know, a few months ago, the Medical Director Institute of the National Council for Behavioral Health, in partnership with the American Psychiatric Association, convened an expert panel to develop a report responding to this evolving quandary. The findings of our 60-page report, “The Psychiatric Shortage: Causes and Solutions,” suggest that psychiatry is uniquely positioned to address the issues that face our specialty.

1. Workforce development

Psychiatrists come out of residency training without the skills they need to practice in today’s rapidly evolving health care environment. We need better preparation in measurement-based care, telepsychiatry, collaborative care, and other methods of efficient team collaboration with primary care.

Funding for graduate medical education and training programs must be expanded with an infusion of new funding – not only for psychiatrists – but also for psychiatric nurse practitioners and psychiatric physician assistants.

2. Improved efficiency of service delivery

Providers of psychiatric services in outpatient psychiatric programs face a cramped daily routine with increasingly briefer appointments scheduled back-to-back that limit in-depth clinical assessment, collaboration with other members of the treatment team, and consultation with primary care providers outside of the program. Such a schedule leads to lower-quality care.

Psychiatrists must have the same level of nurse and paraprofessional assistance and support provided to other medical specialties. In addition, regulations that prevent the broader use of telepsychiatry must be revised. All behavioral health providers should implement open access scheduling, a proven modality for reducing missed appointments.

3. Reducing burdensome regulations and confidentiality restrictions

Excessive documentation requirements, especially necessarily detailed, lengthy assessments and treatment must be revised and 42 CFR Part 2 must be made consistent with HIPAA requirements.

4. Broader implementation of innovative models

The shortage of psychiatrists will only worsen with the integration of primary care and behavioral health, and the shift to Accountable Care Organizations as part of health care reform (which, as of this writing, faces much uncertainty). Thanks to more efficient screening for mental health and substance use disorders now occurring in primary care, there will be growing demand for access to psychiatric services.

The collaborative care model for providing psychiatric services should be implemented throughout primary care. Behavioral health organizations must develop their own version of collaborative care that targets the limited psychiatric resource where it is most needed by using measurement-based care and collaborating more effectively with other team members.

5. Adoption of novel reimbursement methods

Inappropriately low rates limit access to care. Today, 40% of psychiatrists choose cash-only private practices, the second-highest among medical specialties after dermatologists, and 75% of provider organizations employing psychiatrists report that they lose money on their psychiatric services. At the same time, the shrinking number of inpatient psychiatric services has become a significant obstacle to improved access. Beds have been eliminated because of lower rates of reimbursement, compared with other medical-surgical procedures and difficulty in recruiting psychiatrists to staff inpatient units.

Psychiatric service rates must be reset to be consistent with the actual cost of providing care. Prospective payment models like Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics should be expanded, and bundled payments for services like collaborative care and complex care should be covered by payers.

The Medical Director Institute recommends these solutions so that access to psychiatric services does not remain a barrier to the overall success of health care reform and service delivery improving the health of Americans. Multiple stakeholders – federal and state governments, payers, providers, provider trade associations, and advocates – must take action within their spheres of influence in the design, funding, regulation, and delivery of behavioral health care to improve access to psychiatric services. Such broad collaboration is imperative for our patients to get the care they need.

Dr. Parks is the medical director for the National Council for Behavioral Health. He practices psychiatry on an outpatient basis at Family Health Center, a federally funded community health center established to expand services to uninsured and underinsured patients in central Missouri. He also holds the position of Distinguished Research Professor of Science at the University of Missouri–St. Louis and is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Missouri–Columbia.