The obstacles faced by healthcare providers and patients in rural areas are vastly different than those in urban areas. Rural Americans face a unique combination of factors that create disparities in healthcare not found in urban areas:

• Only about 10% of physicians practice in rural America despite the fact that nearly one-fourth of the population lives in these areas.
• Rural residents tend to be poorer. On the average, per capita income is $7,417 lower than in urban areas, and rural Americans are more likely to live below the poverty line. The disparity in incomes is even greater for minorities living in rural areas. Nearly 24% of rural children live in poverty.
• Hypertension is higher in rural than urban areas (101.3 per 1,000 individuals in MSAs and 128.8 per 1,000 individuals in non-MSAs).
• 20% of nonmetropolitan counties lack mental health services, compared with 5% of metropolitan counties.
• Medicare payments to rural hospitals and physicians are dramatically less than those to their urban counterparts for equivalent services. And more than 470 rural hospitals have closed in the past 25 years.
• Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who were treated in rural hospitals were less likely than those treated in urban hospitals to receive recommended treatments and had significantly higher adjusted 30-day post-AMI death rates from all causes than those in urban hospitals.
• Rural residents have greater transportation difficulties reaching healthcare providers, often traveling great distances to reach a doctor or hospital.

Source: www.ruralhealthweb.org

The obstacles faced by healthcare providers and patients in rural areas are vastly different than those in urban areas. Rural Americans face a unique combination of factors that create disparities in healthcare not found in urban areas:

• Only about 10% of physicians practice in rural America despite the fact that nearly one-fourth of the population lives in these areas.
• Rural residents tend to be poorer. On the average, per capita income is $7,417 lower than in urban areas, and rural Americans are more likely to live below the poverty line. The disparity in incomes is even greater for minorities living in rural areas. Nearly 24% of rural children live in poverty.
• Hypertension is higher in rural than urban areas (101.3 per 1,000 individuals in MSAs and 128.8 per 1,000 individuals in non-MSAs).
• 20% of nonmetropolitan counties lack mental health services, compared with 5% of metropolitan counties.
• Medicare payments to rural hospitals and physicians are dramatically less than those to their urban counterparts for equivalent services. And more than 470 rural hospitals have closed in the past 25 years.
• Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who were treated in rural hospitals were less likely than those treated in urban hospitals to receive recommended treatments and had significantly higher adjusted 30-day post-AMI death rates from all causes than those in urban hospitals.
• Rural residents have greater transportation difficulties reaching healthcare providers, often traveling great distances to reach a doctor or hospital.

Source: www.ruralhealthweb.org

The obstacles faced by healthcare providers and patients in rural areas are vastly different than those in urban areas. Rural Americans face a unique combination of factors that create disparities in healthcare not found in urban areas:

• Only about 10% of physicians practice in rural America despite the fact that nearly one-fourth of the population lives in these areas.
• Rural residents tend to be poorer. On the average, per capita income is $7,417 lower than in urban areas, and rural Americans are more likely to live below the poverty line. The disparity in incomes is even greater for minorities living in rural areas. Nearly 24% of rural children live in poverty.
• Hypertension is higher in rural than urban areas (101.3 per 1,000 individuals in MSAs and 128.8 per 1,000 individuals in non-MSAs).
• 20% of nonmetropolitan counties lack mental health services, compared with 5% of metropolitan counties.
• Medicare payments to rural hospitals and physicians are dramatically less than those to their urban counterparts for equivalent services. And more than 470 rural hospitals have closed in the past 25 years.
• Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who were treated in rural hospitals were less likely than those treated in urban hospitals to receive recommended treatments and had significantly higher adjusted 30-day post-AMI death rates from all causes than those in urban hospitals.
• Rural residents have greater transportation difficulties reaching healthcare providers, often traveling great distances to reach a doctor or hospital.

Source: www.ruralhealthweb.org

SHM immediate past president Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, practices hospital medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, but Oklahoma is where he grew up, went to medical school, and performed rural rotations. Some parts of hospitalist practice are the same at big and small hospitals, urban and rural settings, he says.

“Recruitment of high-quality physicians is always a challenge,” Dr. Li says. “That’s where SHM can help.”

SHM’s Career Center, official publications, and the SHM annual meeting are excellent avenues for recruitment, Dr. Li says. SHM also offers online practice-management tools and a variety of collaborative resources—SQUINT, a searchable repository of innovative QI methods and systems, and an electronic QI toolkit known as eQUIPS—to help rural hospitalists.

Based in Kansas City, the National Rural Health Association (www.ruralhealthweb.org) provides additional resources for small, rural hospitals. The NRHA is working with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT and 62 Regional Extension Centers to help rural providers with EHR adoption and implementation, guiding them to meet meaningful-use standards.

“NRHA is a member organization with multiple constituencies,” says Brock Slabach, senior vice president for member services. “If anybody in hospital medicine works in a rural community and wants to connect with an organization like ours, we don’t have a lot of hospitalist members, but we would welcome them.”

SHM immediate past president Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, practices hospital medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, but Oklahoma is where he grew up, went to medical school, and performed rural rotations. Some parts of hospitalist practice are the same at big and small hospitals, urban and rural settings, he says.

“Recruitment of high-quality physicians is always a challenge,” Dr. Li says. “That’s where SHM can help.”

SHM’s Career Center, official publications, and the SHM annual meeting are excellent avenues for recruitment, Dr. Li says. SHM also offers online practice-management tools and a variety of collaborative resources—SQUINT, a searchable repository of innovative QI methods and systems, and an electronic QI toolkit known as eQUIPS—to help rural hospitalists.

Based in Kansas City, the National Rural Health Association (www.ruralhealthweb.org) provides additional resources for small, rural hospitals. The NRHA is working with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT and 62 Regional Extension Centers to help rural providers with EHR adoption and implementation, guiding them to meet meaningful-use standards.

“NRHA is a member organization with multiple constituencies,” says Brock Slabach, senior vice president for member services. “If anybody in hospital medicine works in a rural community and wants to connect with an organization like ours, we don’t have a lot of hospitalist members, but we would welcome them.”

SHM immediate past president Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, practices hospital medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, but Oklahoma is where he grew up, went to medical school, and performed rural rotations. Some parts of hospitalist practice are the same at big and small hospitals, urban and rural settings, he says.

“Recruitment of high-quality physicians is always a challenge,” Dr. Li says. “That’s where SHM can help.”

SHM’s Career Center, official publications, and the SHM annual meeting are excellent avenues for recruitment, Dr. Li says. SHM also offers online practice-management tools and a variety of collaborative resources—SQUINT, a searchable repository of innovative QI methods and systems, and an electronic QI toolkit known as eQUIPS—to help rural hospitalists.

Based in Kansas City, the National Rural Health Association (www.ruralhealthweb.org) provides additional resources for small, rural hospitals. The NRHA is working with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT and 62 Regional Extension Centers to help rural providers with EHR adoption and implementation, guiding them to meet meaningful-use standards.

“NRHA is a member organization with multiple constituencies,” says Brock Slabach, senior vice president for member services. “If anybody in hospital medicine works in a rural community and wants to connect with an organization like ours, we don’t have a lot of hospitalist members, but we would welcome them.”

Medicine in the past 10-20 years has seen major changes driven by changes in payment systems, lifestyle changes, and changes in training patterns. One such change is the hospitalist model of medicine. The advent of hospitalist practice has turned work-life balance on its head, as far as medicine is concerned.

All along, professionalism required that we pay unquestionable attention to the patient, the profession, and the organization—reporting early to work, staying until the work is done, taking work home, and answering the phone on the nights when we were on call. On weekends, finishing pending dictation was normal. The 20-minute mill of outpatient practice has driven primary medicine to a breaking point.

As the pressures of the primary-care job got worse, there came an exit in the form of the hospitalist model. HM provided shift work that could be adjusted to the needs of the physician.

This new kind of job, however, has its own problems. Physicians choosing the normalcy of shift work did not realize that they would give up professional independence. Hospitalists now are governed by the laws of shift work, and at the same time remain governed by the laws of their profession. It is likely when in need they will stay behind and get the work done. And it has been seen that hospitalists do visit the doctors’ lounge, have professional interests outside of direct patient care, and sometimes leave the hospital when their admits and discharges are complete.

And so the shift-work model has, at times, resulted in friction between hospital administration and hospitalists. It could be understood that, from an employer’s perspective, hospitals are paying on an hourly basis and thus expect the hospitalist group to be on site 24/7, sticking around even if there is no work. However, the argument from the hospitalist perspective is that when needed, I stay extra. It should be OK that on low-census days we should be able to leave for a cup of coffee and still be reachable, ready to come in if need arises.

So how do hospitalist-physician professionalism and shift work co-exist? It’s a big question, one that organizations around the country will be looking to solve in the next few years. How this question is answered is going to impact quality of care, recruitment, and staff satisfaction. Each answer will impact the staff and patients.

Keeping in mind outcomes that both parties are looking for, I think a proper plan can be worked out. I suggest hospital administrators adopt the following value-based measurements to evaluate hospitalist clinicians, and establish a compensation system where a minimum amount of production must be met.

Work relative value units (wRVUs). Work RVUs provide a consistent method to measure physician productivity. If one HM clinician’s numbers are below the group average, they might need a lesson in billing, along with a report of their productivity numbers and group expectations.

Patient encounters per day. The average number of patients seen per day (patients seen divided by number of shifts worked) should be measured on a quarterly basis. This metric should provide a measure of the work done by the physician; however, it needs to be offset by your group’s turnover rate (as discussed below).

Length of stay (LOS). Most HM groups are measuring LOS. It is the reason hospitalists exist. Not much more needs to be said about this measure of work performance.

Percentage of patient turnover. A good hospitalist will have a high patient turnover figure (total discharges divided by total encounters per day). This is important to know; it’s even better if accompanied by a short LOS.

New admissions per shift. Again, if there is an outlier, that metric should be detected rather easily.

Patient satisfaction. More and more, this is becoming an important measure of physician quality and is essential for competitive marketplaces. Of course, the quality of medical care will have its own parameters. And it is best left to use the existing, longstanding parameters that are used for the rest of the doctors in your system. There is no need to create an alternative system for the hospitalist.

If all of the above measures are better than the average hospitalist in the locality, then no one should worry about the hospitalist’s other activities, be it involvement in committee work, research, or browsing a newspaper or a cup of coffee in the doctors’ lounge. After all, one of the main reasons physicians opted for HM practice was to have the ability to control their workday.

This will, in my opinion, improve workforce satisfaction and improve productivity. It only makes common sense. It may be a hard pill to swallow for the administrators, but it is the right medicine for the doctor.

Rwoof Reshi, MD, hospitalist, St. Joe’s Hospital, St. Paul, Minn.

Medicine in the past 10-20 years has seen major changes driven by changes in payment systems, lifestyle changes, and changes in training patterns. One such change is the hospitalist model of medicine. The advent of hospitalist practice has turned work-life balance on its head, as far as medicine is concerned.

All along, professionalism required that we pay unquestionable attention to the patient, the profession, and the organization—reporting early to work, staying until the work is done, taking work home, and answering the phone on the nights when we were on call. On weekends, finishing pending dictation was normal. The 20-minute mill of outpatient practice has driven primary medicine to a breaking point.

As the pressures of the primary-care job got worse, there came an exit in the form of the hospitalist model. HM provided shift work that could be adjusted to the needs of the physician.

This new kind of job, however, has its own problems. Physicians choosing the normalcy of shift work did not realize that they would give up professional independence. Hospitalists now are governed by the laws of shift work, and at the same time remain governed by the laws of their profession. It is likely when in need they will stay behind and get the work done. And it has been seen that hospitalists do visit the doctors’ lounge, have professional interests outside of direct patient care, and sometimes leave the hospital when their admits and discharges are complete.

And so the shift-work model has, at times, resulted in friction between hospital administration and hospitalists. It could be understood that, from an employer’s perspective, hospitals are paying on an hourly basis and thus expect the hospitalist group to be on site 24/7, sticking around even if there is no work. However, the argument from the hospitalist perspective is that when needed, I stay extra. It should be OK that on low-census days we should be able to leave for a cup of coffee and still be reachable, ready to come in if need arises.

So how do hospitalist-physician professionalism and shift work co-exist? It’s a big question, one that organizations around the country will be looking to solve in the next few years. How this question is answered is going to impact quality of care, recruitment, and staff satisfaction. Each answer will impact the staff and patients.

Keeping in mind outcomes that both parties are looking for, I think a proper plan can be worked out. I suggest hospital administrators adopt the following value-based measurements to evaluate hospitalist clinicians, and establish a compensation system where a minimum amount of production must be met.

Work relative value units (wRVUs). Work RVUs provide a consistent method to measure physician productivity. If one HM clinician’s numbers are below the group average, they might need a lesson in billing, along with a report of their productivity numbers and group expectations.

Patient encounters per day. The average number of patients seen per day (patients seen divided by number of shifts worked) should be measured on a quarterly basis. This metric should provide a measure of the work done by the physician; however, it needs to be offset by your group’s turnover rate (as discussed below).

Length of stay (LOS). Most HM groups are measuring LOS. It is the reason hospitalists exist. Not much more needs to be said about this measure of work performance.

Percentage of patient turnover. A good hospitalist will have a high patient turnover figure (total discharges divided by total encounters per day). This is important to know; it’s even better if accompanied by a short LOS.

New admissions per shift. Again, if there is an outlier, that metric should be detected rather easily.

Patient satisfaction. More and more, this is becoming an important measure of physician quality and is essential for competitive marketplaces. Of course, the quality of medical care will have its own parameters. And it is best left to use the existing, longstanding parameters that are used for the rest of the doctors in your system. There is no need to create an alternative system for the hospitalist.

If all of the above measures are better than the average hospitalist in the locality, then no one should worry about the hospitalist’s other activities, be it involvement in committee work, research, or browsing a newspaper or a cup of coffee in the doctors’ lounge. After all, one of the main reasons physicians opted for HM practice was to have the ability to control their workday.

This will, in my opinion, improve workforce satisfaction and improve productivity. It only makes common sense. It may be a hard pill to swallow for the administrators, but it is the right medicine for the doctor.

Rwoof Reshi, MD, hospitalist, St. Joe’s Hospital, St. Paul, Minn.

Medicine in the past 10-20 years has seen major changes driven by changes in payment systems, lifestyle changes, and changes in training patterns. One such change is the hospitalist model of medicine. The advent of hospitalist practice has turned work-life balance on its head, as far as medicine is concerned.

All along, professionalism required that we pay unquestionable attention to the patient, the profession, and the organization—reporting early to work, staying until the work is done, taking work home, and answering the phone on the nights when we were on call. On weekends, finishing pending dictation was normal. The 20-minute mill of outpatient practice has driven primary medicine to a breaking point.

As the pressures of the primary-care job got worse, there came an exit in the form of the hospitalist model. HM provided shift work that could be adjusted to the needs of the physician.

This new kind of job, however, has its own problems. Physicians choosing the normalcy of shift work did not realize that they would give up professional independence. Hospitalists now are governed by the laws of shift work, and at the same time remain governed by the laws of their profession. It is likely when in need they will stay behind and get the work done. And it has been seen that hospitalists do visit the doctors’ lounge, have professional interests outside of direct patient care, and sometimes leave the hospital when their admits and discharges are complete.

And so the shift-work model has, at times, resulted in friction between hospital administration and hospitalists. It could be understood that, from an employer’s perspective, hospitals are paying on an hourly basis and thus expect the hospitalist group to be on site 24/7, sticking around even if there is no work. However, the argument from the hospitalist perspective is that when needed, I stay extra. It should be OK that on low-census days we should be able to leave for a cup of coffee and still be reachable, ready to come in if need arises.

So how do hospitalist-physician professionalism and shift work co-exist? It’s a big question, one that organizations around the country will be looking to solve in the next few years. How this question is answered is going to impact quality of care, recruitment, and staff satisfaction. Each answer will impact the staff and patients.

Keeping in mind outcomes that both parties are looking for, I think a proper plan can be worked out. I suggest hospital administrators adopt the following value-based measurements to evaluate hospitalist clinicians, and establish a compensation system where a minimum amount of production must be met.

Work relative value units (wRVUs). Work RVUs provide a consistent method to measure physician productivity. If one HM clinician’s numbers are below the group average, they might need a lesson in billing, along with a report of their productivity numbers and group expectations.

Patient encounters per day. The average number of patients seen per day (patients seen divided by number of shifts worked) should be measured on a quarterly basis. This metric should provide a measure of the work done by the physician; however, it needs to be offset by your group’s turnover rate (as discussed below).

Length of stay (LOS). Most HM groups are measuring LOS. It is the reason hospitalists exist. Not much more needs to be said about this measure of work performance.

Percentage of patient turnover. A good hospitalist will have a high patient turnover figure (total discharges divided by total encounters per day). This is important to know; it’s even better if accompanied by a short LOS.

New admissions per shift. Again, if there is an outlier, that metric should be detected rather easily.

Patient satisfaction. More and more, this is becoming an important measure of physician quality and is essential for competitive marketplaces. Of course, the quality of medical care will have its own parameters. And it is best left to use the existing, longstanding parameters that are used for the rest of the doctors in your system. There is no need to create an alternative system for the hospitalist.

If all of the above measures are better than the average hospitalist in the locality, then no one should worry about the hospitalist’s other activities, be it involvement in committee work, research, or browsing a newspaper or a cup of coffee in the doctors’ lounge. After all, one of the main reasons physicians opted for HM practice was to have the ability to control their workday.

This will, in my opinion, improve workforce satisfaction and improve productivity. It only makes common sense. It may be a hard pill to swallow for the administrators, but it is the right medicine for the doctor.

Rwoof Reshi, MD, hospitalist, St. Joe’s Hospital, St. Paul, Minn.

Blood smear showing MDS

In a multicenter trial, deferasirox reduced serum ferritin and labile plasma iron (LPI) in transfusion-dependent patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). A subset of patients also experienced improvements in hematologic parameters.

In spite of these results, nearly 80% of patients discontinued therapy. But researchers said only about 40% of the discontinuations were drug-related; ie, a result of adverse events, abnormal lab values, or drug inefficacy.

Alan F. List, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, and his colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The team’s research was supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the maker of deferasirox.

The researchers analyzed the effects of the drug in 173 patients with low- or intermediate-1-risk MDS. The median patient age was 71 years (range, 21 to 90 years).

Patients had serum ferritin of at least 1000 μg/L, had received at least 20 units of red blood cells, and had ongoing transfusion requirements. The starting dose of deferasirox was 20 mg/kg per day, with dose escalation up to 40 mg/kg per day.

Patients who completed 1 year of therapy (n=91) experienced a median decrease in serum ferritin of 23%. Serum ferritin decreased by 36.7% in patients who completed 2 years of therapy (n=49) and 36.5% in patients who completed 3 years of therapy (n=33).

The investigators measured LPI quarterly during the first year of the study. Nearly 40% of patients (n=68) had elevated LPI at baseline. But, by week 13, LPI levels had normalized in all of the patients.

Twenty-eight percent of patients (n=51) experienced hematologic improvements according to International Working Group 2006 criteria. However, 7 of these patients had received growth factors or MDS therapy.

By the end of the study period, 79.8% of patients (n=138) had discontinued therapy. The reasons included adverse events in 24.8% (n=43), death in 16.1% (n=28), administrative problems in 15.4% (n=27), and abnormal lab values in 13.2% (n=23).

In addition, 6.9% of patients (n=12) chose not to enroll in the extension phase of the study, and 1.7% of patients (n=3) reported an unsatisfactory therapeutic effect. In 1.1% of cases (n=2), the patient no longer required the drug.

The most common drug-related adverse events were gastrointestinal disturbances and increased serum creatinine. Of the 28 patient deaths, none were linked to deferasirox.

“Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in iron parameters in a group of heavily transfused, lower-risk patients with MDS,” Dr List said. “A randomized trial is warranted to better ascertain the clinical impact of deferasirox therapy in lower-risk patients with MDS.”

Blood smear showing MDS

In a multicenter trial, deferasirox reduced serum ferritin and labile plasma iron (LPI) in transfusion-dependent patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). A subset of patients also experienced improvements in hematologic parameters.

In spite of these results, nearly 80% of patients discontinued therapy. But researchers said only about 40% of the discontinuations were drug-related; ie, a result of adverse events, abnormal lab values, or drug inefficacy.

Alan F. List, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, and his colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The team’s research was supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the maker of deferasirox.

The researchers analyzed the effects of the drug in 173 patients with low- or intermediate-1-risk MDS. The median patient age was 71 years (range, 21 to 90 years).

Patients had serum ferritin of at least 1000 μg/L, had received at least 20 units of red blood cells, and had ongoing transfusion requirements. The starting dose of deferasirox was 20 mg/kg per day, with dose escalation up to 40 mg/kg per day.

Patients who completed 1 year of therapy (n=91) experienced a median decrease in serum ferritin of 23%. Serum ferritin decreased by 36.7% in patients who completed 2 years of therapy (n=49) and 36.5% in patients who completed 3 years of therapy (n=33).

The investigators measured LPI quarterly during the first year of the study. Nearly 40% of patients (n=68) had elevated LPI at baseline. But, by week 13, LPI levels had normalized in all of the patients.

Twenty-eight percent of patients (n=51) experienced hematologic improvements according to International Working Group 2006 criteria. However, 7 of these patients had received growth factors or MDS therapy.

By the end of the study period, 79.8% of patients (n=138) had discontinued therapy. The reasons included adverse events in 24.8% (n=43), death in 16.1% (n=28), administrative problems in 15.4% (n=27), and abnormal lab values in 13.2% (n=23).

In addition, 6.9% of patients (n=12) chose not to enroll in the extension phase of the study, and 1.7% of patients (n=3) reported an unsatisfactory therapeutic effect. In 1.1% of cases (n=2), the patient no longer required the drug.

The most common drug-related adverse events were gastrointestinal disturbances and increased serum creatinine. Of the 28 patient deaths, none were linked to deferasirox.

“Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in iron parameters in a group of heavily transfused, lower-risk patients with MDS,” Dr List said. “A randomized trial is warranted to better ascertain the clinical impact of deferasirox therapy in lower-risk patients with MDS.”

Blood smear showing MDS

In a multicenter trial, deferasirox reduced serum ferritin and labile plasma iron (LPI) in transfusion-dependent patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). A subset of patients also experienced improvements in hematologic parameters.

In spite of these results, nearly 80% of patients discontinued therapy. But researchers said only about 40% of the discontinuations were drug-related; ie, a result of adverse events, abnormal lab values, or drug inefficacy.

Alan F. List, MD, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, and his colleagues reported these results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The team’s research was supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the maker of deferasirox.

The researchers analyzed the effects of the drug in 173 patients with low- or intermediate-1-risk MDS. The median patient age was 71 years (range, 21 to 90 years).

Patients had serum ferritin of at least 1000 μg/L, had received at least 20 units of red blood cells, and had ongoing transfusion requirements. The starting dose of deferasirox was 20 mg/kg per day, with dose escalation up to 40 mg/kg per day.

Patients who completed 1 year of therapy (n=91) experienced a median decrease in serum ferritin of 23%. Serum ferritin decreased by 36.7% in patients who completed 2 years of therapy (n=49) and 36.5% in patients who completed 3 years of therapy (n=33).

The investigators measured LPI quarterly during the first year of the study. Nearly 40% of patients (n=68) had elevated LPI at baseline. But, by week 13, LPI levels had normalized in all of the patients.

Twenty-eight percent of patients (n=51) experienced hematologic improvements according to International Working Group 2006 criteria. However, 7 of these patients had received growth factors or MDS therapy.

By the end of the study period, 79.8% of patients (n=138) had discontinued therapy. The reasons included adverse events in 24.8% (n=43), death in 16.1% (n=28), administrative problems in 15.4% (n=27), and abnormal lab values in 13.2% (n=23).

In addition, 6.9% of patients (n=12) chose not to enroll in the extension phase of the study, and 1.7% of patients (n=3) reported an unsatisfactory therapeutic effect. In 1.1% of cases (n=2), the patient no longer required the drug.

The most common drug-related adverse events were gastrointestinal disturbances and increased serum creatinine. Of the 28 patient deaths, none were linked to deferasirox.

“Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in iron parameters in a group of heavily transfused, lower-risk patients with MDS,” Dr List said. “A randomized trial is warranted to better ascertain the clinical impact of deferasirox therapy in lower-risk patients with MDS.”

Where do rural hospitals look if they are having trouble attracting hospitalists to their communities—and keeping them there? One target should be graduates of international medical schools. Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, director of Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb., estimates that he has recruited 40 physicians to HM practice at the three hospitals his group serves, and at least a dozen of them were international medical graduates (IMGs).

Dr. Bossard works closely with a specialized immigration attorney, Elahe Najfabadi of the Offices of Carl Shusterman in Los Angeles. “There are lots of barriers to address to negotiate positive outcomes,” Dr. Bossard says. “You need an attorney you can rely on thoroughly.”

We get exceedingly high-quality physicians to provide care in rural communities. I love working with them.

                                            

—Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, director of Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb.

There are basically two categories of visas for IMGs: H-1B visas, which are capped nationally but allow doctors the flexibility to move around, and J-1 visas, which allow clinicians to remain in the U.S. while completing their medical studies. J-1 visas expire after two years, but physicians often are granted waivers and remain in the U.S.

According to Najfabadi, each state is allowed 30 physician J-1 visa waivers annually. Physicians must work in underserved areas, including rural communities, and those physicians must stay in the job for three years.

When it comes to the J-1 waiver program, timelines, deadlines, requirements for employers, and other regulations vary by state.

“In one state, we’ve had cases where the state wants verification of the doctor’s approved immigration status before issuing the medical license,” Najfabadi says.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service requires a valid license or a letter from the state that the physician is eligible in order to grant an H-1B permit. Najfabadi encourages potential rural employers of IMGs to learn the rules in their state, and to take advantage of such resources such as the IMG Task Force (http://www.imgtaskforce.org/).

“What I have found is that we get exceedingly high-quality physicians to provide care in rural communities,” Dr. Bossard says. “I love working with them.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Where do rural hospitals look if they are having trouble attracting hospitalists to their communities—and keeping them there? One target should be graduates of international medical schools. Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, director of Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb., estimates that he has recruited 40 physicians to HM practice at the three hospitals his group serves, and at least a dozen of them were international medical graduates (IMGs).

Dr. Bossard works closely with a specialized immigration attorney, Elahe Najfabadi of the Offices of Carl Shusterman in Los Angeles. “There are lots of barriers to address to negotiate positive outcomes,” Dr. Bossard says. “You need an attorney you can rely on thoroughly.”

We get exceedingly high-quality physicians to provide care in rural communities. I love working with them.

                                            

—Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, director of Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb.

There are basically two categories of visas for IMGs: H-1B visas, which are capped nationally but allow doctors the flexibility to move around, and J-1 visas, which allow clinicians to remain in the U.S. while completing their medical studies. J-1 visas expire after two years, but physicians often are granted waivers and remain in the U.S.

According to Najfabadi, each state is allowed 30 physician J-1 visa waivers annually. Physicians must work in underserved areas, including rural communities, and those physicians must stay in the job for three years.

When it comes to the J-1 waiver program, timelines, deadlines, requirements for employers, and other regulations vary by state.

“In one state, we’ve had cases where the state wants verification of the doctor’s approved immigration status before issuing the medical license,” Najfabadi says.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service requires a valid license or a letter from the state that the physician is eligible in order to grant an H-1B permit. Najfabadi encourages potential rural employers of IMGs to learn the rules in their state, and to take advantage of such resources such as the IMG Task Force (http://www.imgtaskforce.org/).

“What I have found is that we get exceedingly high-quality physicians to provide care in rural communities,” Dr. Bossard says. “I love working with them.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Where do rural hospitals look if they are having trouble attracting hospitalists to their communities—and keeping them there? One target should be graduates of international medical schools. Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, director of Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb., estimates that he has recruited 40 physicians to HM practice at the three hospitals his group serves, and at least a dozen of them were international medical graduates (IMGs).

Dr. Bossard works closely with a specialized immigration attorney, Elahe Najfabadi of the Offices of Carl Shusterman in Los Angeles. “There are lots of barriers to address to negotiate positive outcomes,” Dr. Bossard says. “You need an attorney you can rely on thoroughly.”

We get exceedingly high-quality physicians to provide care in rural communities. I love working with them.

                                            

—Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, director of Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb.

There are basically two categories of visas for IMGs: H-1B visas, which are capped nationally but allow doctors the flexibility to move around, and J-1 visas, which allow clinicians to remain in the U.S. while completing their medical studies. J-1 visas expire after two years, but physicians often are granted waivers and remain in the U.S.

According to Najfabadi, each state is allowed 30 physician J-1 visa waivers annually. Physicians must work in underserved areas, including rural communities, and those physicians must stay in the job for three years.

When it comes to the J-1 waiver program, timelines, deadlines, requirements for employers, and other regulations vary by state.

“In one state, we’ve had cases where the state wants verification of the doctor’s approved immigration status before issuing the medical license,” Najfabadi says.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service requires a valid license or a letter from the state that the physician is eligible in order to grant an H-1B permit. Najfabadi encourages potential rural employers of IMGs to learn the rules in their state, and to take advantage of such resources such as the IMG Task Force (http://www.imgtaskforce.org/).

“What I have found is that we get exceedingly high-quality physicians to provide care in rural communities,” Dr. Bossard says. “I love working with them.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

An evaluation of the Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System’s ProvenHealth Navigator, a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, found that hospitalizations have been reduced by 18% for all patients.¹

The National Institutes on Aging-sponsored project Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE), which also functioned according to several PCMH principles, reduced hospitalizations by 40% and 44% in its second and third years, another evaluation showed.^2,3

And in the Veterans Affairs-managed Home-Based Primary Care project, another PCMH-based effort, readmissions were reduced by 22% in the first six months, but the reduction wasn’t sustained for the rest of the year.⁴

Those findings are among the most definitive so far on the effects of the PCMH on hospitalization rates, according to an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report published in February.

The report concluded that among the statistically significant findings in the biggest PCMH evaluations, favorable results far outnumbered unfavorable results—on outcomes, ED use, and patient experience.

But AHRQ also found that most studies have been inconclusive due to problems with their methodologies. For instance, many studies don’t factor in “clustering,” in which patient outcomes within a practice can be expected to be similar to that of other patients at that practice. AHRQ’s report evaluated the results only from studies it determined had methodologies that were sufficiently rigorous.

The evaluation of the GRACE project was the only evaluation that found any evidence of savings, according to the report. But that study was one of only four on the topic that were deemed worth consideration.

David Meyers, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships at AHRQ, points out that the systems that have been evaluated are the very earliest adopters of PCMH principles. Researchers estimate that it could take 10 years to get reliable results.

“The good news,” Dr. Meyers says, “is that there are a lot more demonstrations happening now, so we soon will have a lot more guidance about how to make this model work.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. Gilfillan RJ, Tomcavage J, Rosenthal MB, et al. Value and the medical home: Effects of transformed primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(8):607-614.

2. Bielaszka-DuVernay, et al. The “GRACE” model: in-home assessments lead to better care for dual eligibles. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):431-434.

3. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Tu W, Stump TE, Arling GW. Cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders care management intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(8):1420-1426.

4. Hughes SL, Weaver FM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Effectiveness of team-managed home-based primary care: a randomized multicenter trial. JAMA. 2000;284(22):2877-2885.

An evaluation of the Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System’s ProvenHealth Navigator, a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, found that hospitalizations have been reduced by 18% for all patients.¹

The National Institutes on Aging-sponsored project Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE), which also functioned according to several PCMH principles, reduced hospitalizations by 40% and 44% in its second and third years, another evaluation showed.^2,3

And in the Veterans Affairs-managed Home-Based Primary Care project, another PCMH-based effort, readmissions were reduced by 22% in the first six months, but the reduction wasn’t sustained for the rest of the year.⁴

Those findings are among the most definitive so far on the effects of the PCMH on hospitalization rates, according to an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report published in February.

The report concluded that among the statistically significant findings in the biggest PCMH evaluations, favorable results far outnumbered unfavorable results—on outcomes, ED use, and patient experience.

But AHRQ also found that most studies have been inconclusive due to problems with their methodologies. For instance, many studies don’t factor in “clustering,” in which patient outcomes within a practice can be expected to be similar to that of other patients at that practice. AHRQ’s report evaluated the results only from studies it determined had methodologies that were sufficiently rigorous.

The evaluation of the GRACE project was the only evaluation that found any evidence of savings, according to the report. But that study was one of only four on the topic that were deemed worth consideration.

David Meyers, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships at AHRQ, points out that the systems that have been evaluated are the very earliest adopters of PCMH principles. Researchers estimate that it could take 10 years to get reliable results.

“The good news,” Dr. Meyers says, “is that there are a lot more demonstrations happening now, so we soon will have a lot more guidance about how to make this model work.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. Gilfillan RJ, Tomcavage J, Rosenthal MB, et al. Value and the medical home: Effects of transformed primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(8):607-614.

2. Bielaszka-DuVernay, et al. The “GRACE” model: in-home assessments lead to better care for dual eligibles. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):431-434.

3. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Tu W, Stump TE, Arling GW. Cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders care management intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(8):1420-1426.

4. Hughes SL, Weaver FM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Effectiveness of team-managed home-based primary care: a randomized multicenter trial. JAMA. 2000;284(22):2877-2885.

An evaluation of the Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System’s ProvenHealth Navigator, a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, found that hospitalizations have been reduced by 18% for all patients.¹

The National Institutes on Aging-sponsored project Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE), which also functioned according to several PCMH principles, reduced hospitalizations by 40% and 44% in its second and third years, another evaluation showed.^2,3

And in the Veterans Affairs-managed Home-Based Primary Care project, another PCMH-based effort, readmissions were reduced by 22% in the first six months, but the reduction wasn’t sustained for the rest of the year.⁴

Those findings are among the most definitive so far on the effects of the PCMH on hospitalization rates, according to an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report published in February.

The report concluded that among the statistically significant findings in the biggest PCMH evaluations, favorable results far outnumbered unfavorable results—on outcomes, ED use, and patient experience.

But AHRQ also found that most studies have been inconclusive due to problems with their methodologies. For instance, many studies don’t factor in “clustering,” in which patient outcomes within a practice can be expected to be similar to that of other patients at that practice. AHRQ’s report evaluated the results only from studies it determined had methodologies that were sufficiently rigorous.

The evaluation of the GRACE project was the only evaluation that found any evidence of savings, according to the report. But that study was one of only four on the topic that were deemed worth consideration.

David Meyers, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships at AHRQ, points out that the systems that have been evaluated are the very earliest adopters of PCMH principles. Researchers estimate that it could take 10 years to get reliable results.

“The good news,” Dr. Meyers says, “is that there are a lot more demonstrations happening now, so we soon will have a lot more guidance about how to make this model work.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. Gilfillan RJ, Tomcavage J, Rosenthal MB, et al. Value and the medical home: Effects of transformed primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(8):607-614.

2. Bielaszka-DuVernay, et al. The “GRACE” model: in-home assessments lead to better care for dual eligibles. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):431-434.

3. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Tu W, Stump TE, Arling GW. Cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders care management intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(8):1420-1426.

4. Hughes SL, Weaver FM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Effectiveness of team-managed home-based primary care: a randomized multicenter trial. JAMA. 2000;284(22):2877-2885.

Click here to listen to Dr. Johns

Click here to listen to Dr. Johns

Click here to listen to Dr. Johns

Click here to listen to Dr. Eichhorn

Click here to listen to Dr. Eichhorn

Click here to listen to Dr. Eichhorn

Click here to listen to the state officials

Click here to listen to the state officials

Click here to listen to the state officials

Although the title of April’s cover story (“Benzodiazepines: A versatile clinical tool,” Current Psychiatry, April 2012, p. 54-63; http://bit.ly/1zkanU3) seems to encourage the use of benzodiazepines, the authors state benzodiazepines are second-or third-line treatments for most conditions, particularly for chronic problems.

As an addiction medicine physician, I see well-intentioned doctors prescribing benzodiazepines to patients with chronic ailments. I would like to emphasize the addictive nature of benzodiazepines. “When used appropriately” is contradictory if benzodiazepines are used daily. Tolerance manifests as an exacerbation of the original symptoms, usually leading to a dosage increase. Every day, I see patients in a state of chronic withdrawal manifested in unpleasant ways because they took benzodiazepines “exactly as prescribed, 3 times per day for 4 years.”

Alprazolam is the bane of an addiction medicine practice because it crosses the blood-brain barrier immediately and is relatively short acting. This is a recipe for almost certain addiction, and there are better medications. I regularly transition patients from addictive substances, including benzodiazepines, and no matter what condition I am treating—panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or situational anxiety—I can almost always control the patient’s symptoms using non-addictive medications.

If benzodiazepines are used for almost anything other than a short-lived condition, we are doing a tremendous disservice to our patients and exhibiting the “just give them a pill and get to the next patient” mentality we are accused of.

Terrance Reeves, MD, ABAM
Medical Director
South Walton Medical Center
Miramar Beach, FL

The authors respond

We thank Dr. Reeves for his comments and reminders of the downside to routine and long-term prescribing of benzodiazepines. As an addiction specialist, he is well positioned to see patients who are struggling with syndromes related to benzodiazepine abuse. We stand by our review of the evidence-based studies of the appropriateness of judicious benzodiazepine use in various psychiatric syndromes. The section of our article labeled “Risks of benzodiazepine use” addresses Dr. Reeves’ concerns.

Jolene R. Bostwick, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Clinical Assistant Professor of Pharmacy
University of Michigan College of Pharmacy
Clinical Pharmacist

Michael I. Casher, MD
Clinical Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry
University of Michigan Medical School
Director of Inpatient Adult Psychiatry

Shinji Yasugi, MDFirst-Year Psychiatry ResidentUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn Arbor, MI

Although the title of April’s cover story (“Benzodiazepines: A versatile clinical tool,” Current Psychiatry, April 2012, p. 54-63; http://bit.ly/1zkanU3) seems to encourage the use of benzodiazepines, the authors state benzodiazepines are second-or third-line treatments for most conditions, particularly for chronic problems.

As an addiction medicine physician, I see well-intentioned doctors prescribing benzodiazepines to patients with chronic ailments. I would like to emphasize the addictive nature of benzodiazepines. “When used appropriately” is contradictory if benzodiazepines are used daily. Tolerance manifests as an exacerbation of the original symptoms, usually leading to a dosage increase. Every day, I see patients in a state of chronic withdrawal manifested in unpleasant ways because they took benzodiazepines “exactly as prescribed, 3 times per day for 4 years.”

Alprazolam is the bane of an addiction medicine practice because it crosses the blood-brain barrier immediately and is relatively short acting. This is a recipe for almost certain addiction, and there are better medications. I regularly transition patients from addictive substances, including benzodiazepines, and no matter what condition I am treating—panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or situational anxiety—I can almost always control the patient’s symptoms using non-addictive medications.

If benzodiazepines are used for almost anything other than a short-lived condition, we are doing a tremendous disservice to our patients and exhibiting the “just give them a pill and get to the next patient” mentality we are accused of.

Terrance Reeves, MD, ABAM
Medical Director
South Walton Medical Center
Miramar Beach, FL

The authors respond

We thank Dr. Reeves for his comments and reminders of the downside to routine and long-term prescribing of benzodiazepines. As an addiction specialist, he is well positioned to see patients who are struggling with syndromes related to benzodiazepine abuse. We stand by our review of the evidence-based studies of the appropriateness of judicious benzodiazepine use in various psychiatric syndromes. The section of our article labeled “Risks of benzodiazepine use” addresses Dr. Reeves’ concerns.

Jolene R. Bostwick, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Clinical Assistant Professor of Pharmacy
University of Michigan College of Pharmacy
Clinical Pharmacist

Michael I. Casher, MD
Clinical Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry
University of Michigan Medical School
Director of Inpatient Adult Psychiatry

Shinji Yasugi, MDFirst-Year Psychiatry ResidentUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn Arbor, MI

Although the title of April’s cover story (“Benzodiazepines: A versatile clinical tool,” Current Psychiatry, April 2012, p. 54-63; http://bit.ly/1zkanU3) seems to encourage the use of benzodiazepines, the authors state benzodiazepines are second-or third-line treatments for most conditions, particularly for chronic problems.

As an addiction medicine physician, I see well-intentioned doctors prescribing benzodiazepines to patients with chronic ailments. I would like to emphasize the addictive nature of benzodiazepines. “When used appropriately” is contradictory if benzodiazepines are used daily. Tolerance manifests as an exacerbation of the original symptoms, usually leading to a dosage increase. Every day, I see patients in a state of chronic withdrawal manifested in unpleasant ways because they took benzodiazepines “exactly as prescribed, 3 times per day for 4 years.”

Alprazolam is the bane of an addiction medicine practice because it crosses the blood-brain barrier immediately and is relatively short acting. This is a recipe for almost certain addiction, and there are better medications. I regularly transition patients from addictive substances, including benzodiazepines, and no matter what condition I am treating—panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, or situational anxiety—I can almost always control the patient’s symptoms using non-addictive medications.

If benzodiazepines are used for almost anything other than a short-lived condition, we are doing a tremendous disservice to our patients and exhibiting the “just give them a pill and get to the next patient” mentality we are accused of.

Terrance Reeves, MD, ABAM
Medical Director
South Walton Medical Center
Miramar Beach, FL

The authors respond

We thank Dr. Reeves for his comments and reminders of the downside to routine and long-term prescribing of benzodiazepines. As an addiction specialist, he is well positioned to see patients who are struggling with syndromes related to benzodiazepine abuse. We stand by our review of the evidence-based studies of the appropriateness of judicious benzodiazepine use in various psychiatric syndromes. The section of our article labeled “Risks of benzodiazepine use” addresses Dr. Reeves’ concerns.

Jolene R. Bostwick, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Clinical Assistant Professor of Pharmacy
University of Michigan College of Pharmacy
Clinical Pharmacist

Michael I. Casher, MD
Clinical Assistant Professor
Department of Psychiatry
University of Michigan Medical School
Director of Inpatient Adult Psychiatry

Shinji Yasugi, MDFirst-Year Psychiatry ResidentUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn Arbor, MI