MDedge ObGyn

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

When the hospital’s trauma team could not get an IV inserted into an accident victim, they called Illinois emergency physician William Sullivan, DO, JD, for help. Dr. Sullivan, who is based in the Chicago suburb of Frankfort, inserted a central line into the patient’s leg on his first attempt – a task that took about 20 minutes.

A year later, Dr. Sullivan was shocked and angry to learn he was being sued by the trauma patient’s family. Inserting the line was his only interaction with the woman, and he had no role in her care management, he said. Yet, the suit claimed he was negligent for failing to diagnose the patient with internal bleeding and for not performing surgery. 

“The lawsuit put a lot of stress on our family,” Dr. Sullivan recalled. “At the time my wife was pregnant. I was in law school, and I was also working full time in the ER to support our family. I remember my wife crying on the couch after reading the complaint and asking how the plaintiff’s attorney could get away with making the allegations he made.”

Dr. Sullivan soon learned that 15 medical providers in the patient’s medical record were named as defendants. This included the director of the radiology department, whose name was on a radiology report as “director” but who was actually out of the country when the incident occurred.

Despite some of the accusations being impossible, a medical expert had claimed there was a “meritorious claim” against every health professional named in the suit. Illinois is among the 28 states that require plaintiffs’ attorneys to file an affidavit of merit for medical malpractice claims to move forward.

Dr. Sullivan wondered who would endorse such outlandish accusations, but the expert’s identity was a mystery. According to Illinois law, plaintiffs’ attorneys can withhold the identity of medical experts with whom they consult for affidavits of merit. About one-third of states with merit requirements permit anonymous experts, according to research and attorneys familiar with the issue.

Because the expert’s identity remains hidden, physicians have no way of knowing whether they were qualified to render an opinion, Dr. Sullivan said. The loopholes can drag out frivolous claims and waste significant time and expense, say legal experts. Frequently, it takes a year or more before innocent physicians are dismissed from unfounded lawsuits by the court or dropped when plaintiffs can’t support the claim.

“It’s hugely frustrating,” said Bruce Montoya, JD, a Colorado medical liability defense attorney. “You have an expert who is not disclosed. Further down the road, when experts are being deposed, the plaintiff does not have to reveal whether any of those testifying experts is the same one who certified the case. You never get to determine whether they, in fact, had a certificate reviewer who was legitimate.”

The laws have led to a recent outcry among physicians and fueled a revised resolution by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) denouncing anonymous affidavits of merit. (The revision has not yet been published online.)

“The minute experts are identified, they can be vetted,” said Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, chair of ACEP’s Medical Legal Committee. “There are reasons that you want to clarify the qualification and veracity of the witness. [Anonymous affidavits of merit] don’t allow that, and there’s something inherently wrong with that.”

Because the identities of consulting experts are unknown, it’s hard to know how many are unqualified. Expert witnesses who testify during trials, on the other hand, have long come under scrutiny for questionable qualifications. Some have come under fire for allegedly lying under oath about their experience, misrepresenting their credentials, and falsely representing their knowledge.

“Considering the known problem of potentially unethical expert witness testimony at trial, there’s is the potential likelihood that experts in anonymous affidavits of merit may sometimes lack the qualifications to give opinions,” said Dr. Vukmir, an emergency care physician in Pittsburgh.
 

Attorneys: Hidden experts increase costs, waste time

In Colorado, Mr. Montoya has seen firsthand how anonymous experts can prolong questionable claims and burden defendants.

Like Illinois, Colorado does not require attorneys to identify the medical experts used to fulfill its certificate of review statute. The expert consulted must have expertise in the same area of the alleged negligence, but does not have to practice in the same specialty, and the statute allows one expert to certify a lawsuit against multiple doctors.

In a recent case, Mr. Montoya represented a Denver neurosurgeon who was sued along with multiple other health care professionals. From the outset, Mr. Montoya argued the claim had no merit against the neurosurgeon, but the plaintiff’s attorney refused to dismiss the physician. Mr. Montoya asked whether the expert consulted for the certificate of merit was a neurosurgeon, but the attorney declined to disclose that information, he said.

The case progressed and Mr. Montoya eventually asked the judge to review the certificate of merit. By law, a judge can confidentially review the certificate of merit and decide whether it aligns with the state statute, but without disclosing the expert’s identity to the defense. The judge ruled the certificate appeared to conform with state law, and the case continued.

A year later, as both sides were getting ready to disclose their experts who would testify, Mr. Montoya again argued the neurosurgeon should be dropped from the suit. This time, he warned if the claim continued against the neurosurgeon, the defense would be filing a motion for summary judgment and pursuing attorney fees and costs. Colorado law allows for such fees if the filing or pursuit of an action is frivolous.

“Boom, my client was dismissed,” Mr. Montoya said. “This is a year later, after multiple conferences among the attorneys, multiple pleadings filed, expert witnesses retained to review the care, discovery exchanged, and records obtained. If we had [a stronger] certificate of review statute, it would have been a different ballgame. It’s never going to get a year down the road.”

In New York, physician defendants have experienced similar woes. The state’s law requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to certify that they consulted with a physician prior to filing the claim, and that they believe based on that discussion, there’s a reasonable basis for the claim to move forward. Attorneys are not required to disclose the expert’s identity.

The law also allows “an out,” explained Morris Auster, JD, senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the Medical Society of the State of New York. If the attorney made three separate attempts to obtain a consultation, and all three experts would not agree to the consultation, the lawsuit can be filed anyway, he said.

“From our standpoint, it’s important to have an affidavit of merit requirement; it’s better than not having it,” Mr. Auster said. “But its effectiveness in providing control over the filing of lawsuits in New York has never been as strong as it could’ve been.”

Mr. Auster notes that New York has some of the highest liability costs in the country in addition to doctors paying some of the steepest medical liability insurance premiums.

“This really affects a lot of physicians and it’s driving physicians into employment arrangements, so they don’t have to deal with it on their own,” he said. “We support a number of measures to address these significantly high costs, and stronger certificate of merit requirements would certainly be one of those advocacy goals.”
 

Why are anonymous experts allowed?

Certificates of merit that shield the identity of consultants encourage a greater pool of physicians willing to review cases, said J. Matthew Dudley, JD, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. When the requirements first went into effect in Illinois, there was significant animosity among physicians toward doctors who testified in medical malpractice cases for patients, Mr. Dudley explained.

“Sometimes they would be ostracized from their professional societies, or it would hurt a referral relationship.” he said. “Over time, that animosity has lessened, but there was a concern that if the identity of physicians in certificates of merit weren’t protected, then doctors would not look at cases for patients.”

This would result in additional barriers for patients and their attorneys in pursuing their legal rights, Mr. Dudley said. He said Illinois’ certificate of merit statute is successful in fulfilling its intended purpose, and he has not seen any statistical evidence to suggest otherwise.

“It has proven effective at decreasing filings in medical malpractice and effectively screening medical malpractice cases,” he said. “Certificates of merit help to decrease filings by firms that aren’t that experienced in dealing with those kinds of cases.”

Kentucky is another state that does not require attorneys to identity the experts consulted for certificates of merit. Malpractice defense attorney Andrew DeSimone, JD, who practices in Kentucky, said this isn’t a problem since attorneys eventually must disclose the expert witnesses who will testify at trial.

“Knowing the name behind the certificate of merit is not that pertinent,” Mr. DeSimone said. “Physicians and their attorneys will ultimately have the chance to question and evaluate the expert witnesses used at trial. The certificate of merit is designed to weed out totally frivolous cases that do not have expert support. It’s not designed to be a trial on the merits.” 

The belief that plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently bring weak cases and use unqualified experts to certify claims is not realistic or logical, added Sean Domnick, JD, a Florida medical malpractice attorney and vice president for the American Association for Justice. Medical malpractice cases are extremely challenging for plaintiffs – and they’re expensive, Mr. Domnick said.  

“We can’t afford to take bad cases,” he said. “For me to take on a medical malpractice case, it’s not unusual for me to spend well over $100,000. Remember, if we lose, I don’t get that money back and I don’t get paid. Why in the world would a plaintiff take on that type of a burden for a case they didn’t believe in? The logic escapes me.”

In Florida, where Mr. Domnick practices, plaintiffs’ attorneys must send their certificates of merit to the defense with the expert identified. Domnick believes the requirement is a hindrance.

“It creates a delay that is unnecessary in a system that is already designed to wear our clients down,” he said. “It’s just another component that makes it harder on them.”
 

Hidden experts may insulate plaintiffs’ attorneys from liability

Dr. Sullivan, the Illinois emergency physician, was ultimately dismissed from the multiparty lawsuit, but not for roughly 18 months. After the dismissal, he fought back. He sued the plaintiff’s law firm for malicious prosecution, negligence in hiring, and relying on the opinion of an expert who was unqualified to render an opinion against an emergency physician.

The law firm, however, argued that it was immune from liability because it reasonably relied on the expert’s opinion as required by Illinois law. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ firm. The judge denied Dr. Sullivan’s request to identify the expert, ruling there was no finding that the affidavit was untrue or made without reasonable cause. Dr. Sullivan appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision.

“As happened with my case, law firms can use the affidavit as a defense against countersuits or motions for sanctions,” Dr. Sullivan said. “Although the certificate of merit is intended to prevent attorneys from filing frivolous cases, it can also have the opposite effect of helping to insulate plaintiff attorneys from liability for filing a frivolous lawsuit.”

In Colorado, complaints about the state’s certificate of merit statute have gone before the Colorado Supreme Court. In one case, a lower court ruled that a certificate of merit was deficient because the consultants were not chiropractors. In another case, a nurse defendant argued the claim’s certificate of review was insufficient because the consulting expert was a physician.

In both instances, Colorado judges held the state’s statute does not require consultants to be in the same profession or the same specialty as the health professional defendant. 

In New York, meanwhile, Mr. Auster said several bills to strengthen the state’s certificate of merit requirements have failed in recent years.

“It’s hard to say whether it will improve anytime soon,” he said. “The trial lawyers are a very powerful advocacy force in the state, and they tend to oppose even the slightest of changes in civil liability. [In addition], some of these issues have been put on a lower tier because of trying to manage the pandemic.”

Ultimately, Dr. Sullivan said that courts and legislatures need to strongly consider the ethics of allowing anonymous experts to provide testimony against defendant physicians.

“I also think we need to consider how the notion of a secret expert comports with a defendant physician’s due process,” he said. “If an expert’s opinion is appropriate, why would there be a need to shroud one’s identity in a veil of secrecy?” 

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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

Stanford Health Care’s resident physicians voted May 2 in favor of joining the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR-SEIU), part of a growing trend in unionization within the medical profession.

More than 81% of the health system’s resident physicians voted to join the union; the decision garnered 835 yes votes and 214 no votes, according to a CIR-SEIU announcement. The largest housestaff union in the United States and a local of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), CIR-SEIU represents more than 20,000 resident physicians and fellows.

“With its successful representation with the Committee of Interns and Residents, Stanford housestaff now join the strong community of allied unions and fellow health care workers such as the Committee for Recognition of Nursing Achievement (CRONA), an independent union of Stanford nurses,” according to CIR-SEIU.

“We are organizing not only for a new economic contract that enables all potential housestaff and their families to afford living in the Bay Area but also for a new social contract that redefines how we are valued by the hospital system,” Ben Solomon, MD, PhD, a third-year resident physician in pediatrics at Stanford Medicine and a member of CIR-SEIU, said in an interview.

“This includes advocating for more humane working hours, reasonable parental leave, and childcare support, as well as resources to combat burnout in young physicians,” he added.

Lisa Kim, a spokesperson for Stanford Health Care, told this news organization that “a majority of residents and fellows at Stanford Health Care voted in favor of unionization. Of 1,478 total residents and fellows, 835 voted in favor. CIR/SEIU will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for all residents and fellows. Stanford Health Care does not plan to contest the election results.”

“As we begin the collective bargaining process, our goal remains unchanged: providing our residents and fellows with a world-class training experience. We will bring this same focus to negotiations as we strive to support their development as physician leaders,” she added.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must certify the election results before they are considered final, per CIR-SEIU. An independent federal agency, the NLRB safeguards employees’ rights to organize and determines whether union participation is appropriate while also preventing and remedying unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.
 

Concerns date back to initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout

The residents delivered a formal demand to Stanford Health Care to recognize the union in February; their request was not accepted by the health system. The residents’ concerns date as far back as the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines at the end of 2020.

Of the health system’s 5,000 doses, only seven residents and fellows were included in the initial round.

Niraj Sehgal, MD, chief medical officer for Stanford Health Care, apologized in a letter to the graduate medical education community, posted by Palo Alto Weekly, which revealed the root causes to be an algorithm used by the hospital and the age of the residents.

The vote by Stanford Health Care’s residents comes a day after nurses at Stanford and Lucile Packard Children’s hospitals ratified a new contract with their union after a strike for better working conditions and higher pay stretched on for a week, reported Palo Alto Online.
 

Part of a growing trend

Dr. Solomon got involved in the unionization effort at Stanford Health Care “to have a say in working conditions for residents and fellows,” he said. “As individuals, it’s virtually impossible to make demands to our hospital without risking our careers, but together we can demand improvements on the job and in patient care.”

The health system’s inability to extend COVID-19 vaccines during the initial rollout, “despite our role working with COVID patients on the frontlines,” spurred his involvement in the union effort, said Dr. Solomon.

In the short term, the union will be involved in negotiating its first contract, he said. “However, in the long term, we are committed to supporting the unionization efforts of residents and fellows across the country, including partnering with many housestaff unions here in California.”

Stanford Health Care’s residents are participating in a growing trend. In Worcester, Mass., UMass Medical School’s 613 residents and fellow physicians, who are also represented by CIR-SEIU, had their union certified by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations in March 2021, reported the (Worcester) Telegram & Gazette.

Other unionization efforts across the country include a supermajority of 85 interns, residents, and fellows employed by Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California , who requested that Los Angeles County+USC Medical Center recognize their union, per an announcement. That’s in addition to residents at University of Vermont Medical Center, who announced their intention to unionize in March, reported VTDigger.org.

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

In an updated clinical practice guideline, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has named the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) as the only genomic test that should be used to guide extended endocrine therapy decisions for women with early-stage, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. The update applies to women who are node negative or have one to three positive nodes treated with 5 years of endocrine therapy and no sign of recurrence.

The update was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It also gives more specific details on how to apply other, previously recommended, genomic tests to guide treatment choices.

More than half of breast cancer deaths occur after 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)- B14 trial, published in 2001, showed no benefit to extending tamoxifen therapy to 10 years, but other studies have produced mixed results.

Extended endocrine therapy may reduce the risk of recurrence, but significant side effects can impact quality of life, including osteoporosis, bone fractures, and joint pain. The uncertain benefits of extended endocrine therapy, combined with its side effects and impact on quality of life, has generated interest in genomic tests to identify patients most likely to benefit.

The BCI analyzes 11 genes from the tumor and delivers two results: the likelihood of recurrence 5-10 years after diagnosis, and whether a total of 10 years of endocrine therapy are likely to provide a survival benefit.

The 21-gene prognostic and predictive assay Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score, the 70-gene signature test Mammaprint, the 12-gene risk score EndoPredict, levels of Ki67 expression, and immunohistochemistry are also recommended for guiding decisions on endocrine therapy. The update included additional guidance on specific situations that each can be used. However, their usefulness for predicting recurrence at 5-10 years is unproven.

“The clinical decision to either extend or end adjuvant endocrine therapy after 5 years is a challenging decision for healthcare providers and their patients,” Mark Pegram, MD, said in a press release. He is chief medical consultant for breast oncology at Biotheranostics, a subsidiary of Hologic. “There is an extensive body of clinical evidence consistently proving the utility of BCI, and its addition to major oncology clinical guidelines like those from ASCO further underscores the test’s potential in clinical decision-making regarding extended adjuvant endocrine therapy.”

The practice update cited five previous studies showing the ability of BCI to predict benefit from extending endocrine therapy: From 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 more years of tamoxifen; from 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor, and from 5 years of an AI to another 5 years of a drug from the same class. Most of the trials included patients who were node negative or had one to three positive nodes, so there is limited evidence supporting BCI in patients with more than three positive lymph nodes. The recommendation also applies only to postmenopausal women, as the trials included fewer premenopausal and perimenopausal women.

Several of the guideline authors reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources.

In an updated clinical practice guideline, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has named the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) as the only genomic test that should be used to guide extended endocrine therapy decisions for women with early-stage, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. The update applies to women who are node negative or have one to three positive nodes treated with 5 years of endocrine therapy and no sign of recurrence.

The update was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It also gives more specific details on how to apply other, previously recommended, genomic tests to guide treatment choices.

More than half of breast cancer deaths occur after 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)- B14 trial, published in 2001, showed no benefit to extending tamoxifen therapy to 10 years, but other studies have produced mixed results.

Extended endocrine therapy may reduce the risk of recurrence, but significant side effects can impact quality of life, including osteoporosis, bone fractures, and joint pain. The uncertain benefits of extended endocrine therapy, combined with its side effects and impact on quality of life, has generated interest in genomic tests to identify patients most likely to benefit.

The BCI analyzes 11 genes from the tumor and delivers two results: the likelihood of recurrence 5-10 years after diagnosis, and whether a total of 10 years of endocrine therapy are likely to provide a survival benefit.

The 21-gene prognostic and predictive assay Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score, the 70-gene signature test Mammaprint, the 12-gene risk score EndoPredict, levels of Ki67 expression, and immunohistochemistry are also recommended for guiding decisions on endocrine therapy. The update included additional guidance on specific situations that each can be used. However, their usefulness for predicting recurrence at 5-10 years is unproven.

“The clinical decision to either extend or end adjuvant endocrine therapy after 5 years is a challenging decision for healthcare providers and their patients,” Mark Pegram, MD, said in a press release. He is chief medical consultant for breast oncology at Biotheranostics, a subsidiary of Hologic. “There is an extensive body of clinical evidence consistently proving the utility of BCI, and its addition to major oncology clinical guidelines like those from ASCO further underscores the test’s potential in clinical decision-making regarding extended adjuvant endocrine therapy.”

The practice update cited five previous studies showing the ability of BCI to predict benefit from extending endocrine therapy: From 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 more years of tamoxifen; from 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor, and from 5 years of an AI to another 5 years of a drug from the same class. Most of the trials included patients who were node negative or had one to three positive nodes, so there is limited evidence supporting BCI in patients with more than three positive lymph nodes. The recommendation also applies only to postmenopausal women, as the trials included fewer premenopausal and perimenopausal women.

Several of the guideline authors reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources.

In an updated clinical practice guideline, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has named the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) as the only genomic test that should be used to guide extended endocrine therapy decisions for women with early-stage, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. The update applies to women who are node negative or have one to three positive nodes treated with 5 years of endocrine therapy and no sign of recurrence.

The update was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It also gives more specific details on how to apply other, previously recommended, genomic tests to guide treatment choices.

More than half of breast cancer deaths occur after 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)- B14 trial, published in 2001, showed no benefit to extending tamoxifen therapy to 10 years, but other studies have produced mixed results.

Extended endocrine therapy may reduce the risk of recurrence, but significant side effects can impact quality of life, including osteoporosis, bone fractures, and joint pain. The uncertain benefits of extended endocrine therapy, combined with its side effects and impact on quality of life, has generated interest in genomic tests to identify patients most likely to benefit.

The BCI analyzes 11 genes from the tumor and delivers two results: the likelihood of recurrence 5-10 years after diagnosis, and whether a total of 10 years of endocrine therapy are likely to provide a survival benefit.

The 21-gene prognostic and predictive assay Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score, the 70-gene signature test Mammaprint, the 12-gene risk score EndoPredict, levels of Ki67 expression, and immunohistochemistry are also recommended for guiding decisions on endocrine therapy. The update included additional guidance on specific situations that each can be used. However, their usefulness for predicting recurrence at 5-10 years is unproven.

“The clinical decision to either extend or end adjuvant endocrine therapy after 5 years is a challenging decision for healthcare providers and their patients,” Mark Pegram, MD, said in a press release. He is chief medical consultant for breast oncology at Biotheranostics, a subsidiary of Hologic. “There is an extensive body of clinical evidence consistently proving the utility of BCI, and its addition to major oncology clinical guidelines like those from ASCO further underscores the test’s potential in clinical decision-making regarding extended adjuvant endocrine therapy.”

The practice update cited five previous studies showing the ability of BCI to predict benefit from extending endocrine therapy: From 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 more years of tamoxifen; from 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor, and from 5 years of an AI to another 5 years of a drug from the same class. Most of the trials included patients who were node negative or had one to three positive nodes, so there is limited evidence supporting BCI in patients with more than three positive lymph nodes. The recommendation also applies only to postmenopausal women, as the trials included fewer premenopausal and perimenopausal women.

Several of the guideline authors reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources.

CHICAGO – Both physicians and patients like the idea of having health care delivered virtually, and telehealth will likely continue to be prominent in the U.S. medical landscape, according to the medical director for digital health and telemedicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

This physician, Brian Hasselfeld, MD, said his university’s health system did 50-80 telemedicine visits a month before COVID, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. This soared to close to 100,000 a month in the pandemic, and now the health system does close to 40,000 a month, he continued.

“Life is definitely different in how we engage with our patients on a day-to-day basis,” said Dr. Hasselfeld, who oversees the telehealth for six hospitals and 50 ambulatory-care locations in Maryland and three other states.

Attitudes gauged in Johns Hopkins surveys suggest that a lot of medical care will continue to be provided by telemedicine. Nine out of 10 patients said they would likely recommend telemedicine to friends and family, and 88% said it would be either moderately, very, or extremely important to have video visit options in the future, he said.

A survey of the Hopkins system’s 3,600 physicians, which generated about 1,300 responses, found that physicians would like to have a considerable chunk of time set aside for telemedicine visits – the median response was 30%.
 

Virtual care is in ‘early-adopter phase’

But Dr. Hasselfeld said virtual care is still in the “early-adopter phase.” While many physicians said they would like more than half of their time devoted to telehealth, a larger proportion was more likely to say they wanted very little time devoted to it, Dr. Hasselfeld said. Among those wanting to do it are some who want to do all of their visits virtually, he said.

Those who are eager to do it will be those guiding the change, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

“As we move forward – and thinking about how to optimize virtual-care options for your patients – it’s not going to be a forced issue,” he said.

Providing better access to certain patient groups continues to be a challenge. A dashboard developed at Hopkins to identify groups who are at a technological disadvantage and don’t have ready access to telemedicine found that those living in low-income zip codes, African-Americans, and those on Medicaid and Medicare tend to have higher percentages of “audio-only” visits, mainly because of lack of connectivity allowing video visits, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The lower share of video visits in the inner city suggests that access to telemedicine isn’t just a problem in remote rural areas, as the conventional wisdom has gone, he said.

“It doesn’t matter how many towers we have in downtown Baltimore, or how much fiber we have in the ground,” he said. “If you can’t have a data plan to access that high-speed Internet, or have a home with high-speed Internet, it doesn’t matter.”

Hopkins has developed a tool to assess how likely it is that someone will have trouble connecting for a telemedicine visit – if they’ve previously had an audio-only visit, for instance – and try to get in touch with those patients shortly before a visit so that it runs smoothly, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The explosion of telemedicine has led to the rise of companies providing care through apps on phones and tablets, he said.

“This is real care being provided to our patients through nontraditional routes, and this is a new force, one our patients see out in the marketplace,” he said. “We have to acknowledge and wrestle with the fact that convenience is a new part of what it means to [provide] access [to] care for patients.”

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview after the session that telemedicine is poised to improve care.

“I think the good is definitely going to outweigh the bad so long as the infrastructure and the legislation will allow it,” said Dr. Hirsch, who does about half of her visits in person and half through telemedicine, which she performs while at the office. “It does allow for a lot of flexibility for both patients and providers.”

But health care at academic medical centers, she said, needs to adjust to the times.

“We need [academic medicine] for so many reasons,” she said, “but the reality is that it moves very slowly, and the old infrastructure and the slowness to catch up with technology is the worry.”

Dr. Hasselfeld reported financial relationships with Humana and TRUE-See Systems.

CHICAGO – Both physicians and patients like the idea of having health care delivered virtually, and telehealth will likely continue to be prominent in the U.S. medical landscape, according to the medical director for digital health and telemedicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

This physician, Brian Hasselfeld, MD, said his university’s health system did 50-80 telemedicine visits a month before COVID, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. This soared to close to 100,000 a month in the pandemic, and now the health system does close to 40,000 a month, he continued.

“Life is definitely different in how we engage with our patients on a day-to-day basis,” said Dr. Hasselfeld, who oversees the telehealth for six hospitals and 50 ambulatory-care locations in Maryland and three other states.

Attitudes gauged in Johns Hopkins surveys suggest that a lot of medical care will continue to be provided by telemedicine. Nine out of 10 patients said they would likely recommend telemedicine to friends and family, and 88% said it would be either moderately, very, or extremely important to have video visit options in the future, he said.

A survey of the Hopkins system’s 3,600 physicians, which generated about 1,300 responses, found that physicians would like to have a considerable chunk of time set aside for telemedicine visits – the median response was 30%.
 

Virtual care is in ‘early-adopter phase’

But Dr. Hasselfeld said virtual care is still in the “early-adopter phase.” While many physicians said they would like more than half of their time devoted to telehealth, a larger proportion was more likely to say they wanted very little time devoted to it, Dr. Hasselfeld said. Among those wanting to do it are some who want to do all of their visits virtually, he said.

Those who are eager to do it will be those guiding the change, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

“As we move forward – and thinking about how to optimize virtual-care options for your patients – it’s not going to be a forced issue,” he said.

Providing better access to certain patient groups continues to be a challenge. A dashboard developed at Hopkins to identify groups who are at a technological disadvantage and don’t have ready access to telemedicine found that those living in low-income zip codes, African-Americans, and those on Medicaid and Medicare tend to have higher percentages of “audio-only” visits, mainly because of lack of connectivity allowing video visits, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The lower share of video visits in the inner city suggests that access to telemedicine isn’t just a problem in remote rural areas, as the conventional wisdom has gone, he said.

“It doesn’t matter how many towers we have in downtown Baltimore, or how much fiber we have in the ground,” he said. “If you can’t have a data plan to access that high-speed Internet, or have a home with high-speed Internet, it doesn’t matter.”

Hopkins has developed a tool to assess how likely it is that someone will have trouble connecting for a telemedicine visit – if they’ve previously had an audio-only visit, for instance – and try to get in touch with those patients shortly before a visit so that it runs smoothly, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The explosion of telemedicine has led to the rise of companies providing care through apps on phones and tablets, he said.

“This is real care being provided to our patients through nontraditional routes, and this is a new force, one our patients see out in the marketplace,” he said. “We have to acknowledge and wrestle with the fact that convenience is a new part of what it means to [provide] access [to] care for patients.”

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview after the session that telemedicine is poised to improve care.

“I think the good is definitely going to outweigh the bad so long as the infrastructure and the legislation will allow it,” said Dr. Hirsch, who does about half of her visits in person and half through telemedicine, which she performs while at the office. “It does allow for a lot of flexibility for both patients and providers.”

But health care at academic medical centers, she said, needs to adjust to the times.

“We need [academic medicine] for so many reasons,” she said, “but the reality is that it moves very slowly, and the old infrastructure and the slowness to catch up with technology is the worry.”

Dr. Hasselfeld reported financial relationships with Humana and TRUE-See Systems.

CHICAGO – Both physicians and patients like the idea of having health care delivered virtually, and telehealth will likely continue to be prominent in the U.S. medical landscape, according to the medical director for digital health and telemedicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

This physician, Brian Hasselfeld, MD, said his university’s health system did 50-80 telemedicine visits a month before COVID, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians. This soared to close to 100,000 a month in the pandemic, and now the health system does close to 40,000 a month, he continued.

“Life is definitely different in how we engage with our patients on a day-to-day basis,” said Dr. Hasselfeld, who oversees the telehealth for six hospitals and 50 ambulatory-care locations in Maryland and three other states.

Attitudes gauged in Johns Hopkins surveys suggest that a lot of medical care will continue to be provided by telemedicine. Nine out of 10 patients said they would likely recommend telemedicine to friends and family, and 88% said it would be either moderately, very, or extremely important to have video visit options in the future, he said.

A survey of the Hopkins system’s 3,600 physicians, which generated about 1,300 responses, found that physicians would like to have a considerable chunk of time set aside for telemedicine visits – the median response was 30%.
 

Virtual care is in ‘early-adopter phase’

But Dr. Hasselfeld said virtual care is still in the “early-adopter phase.” While many physicians said they would like more than half of their time devoted to telehealth, a larger proportion was more likely to say they wanted very little time devoted to it, Dr. Hasselfeld said. Among those wanting to do it are some who want to do all of their visits virtually, he said.

Those who are eager to do it will be those guiding the change, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

“As we move forward – and thinking about how to optimize virtual-care options for your patients – it’s not going to be a forced issue,” he said.

Providing better access to certain patient groups continues to be a challenge. A dashboard developed at Hopkins to identify groups who are at a technological disadvantage and don’t have ready access to telemedicine found that those living in low-income zip codes, African-Americans, and those on Medicaid and Medicare tend to have higher percentages of “audio-only” visits, mainly because of lack of connectivity allowing video visits, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The lower share of video visits in the inner city suggests that access to telemedicine isn’t just a problem in remote rural areas, as the conventional wisdom has gone, he said.

“It doesn’t matter how many towers we have in downtown Baltimore, or how much fiber we have in the ground,” he said. “If you can’t have a data plan to access that high-speed Internet, or have a home with high-speed Internet, it doesn’t matter.”

Hopkins has developed a tool to assess how likely it is that someone will have trouble connecting for a telemedicine visit – if they’ve previously had an audio-only visit, for instance – and try to get in touch with those patients shortly before a visit so that it runs smoothly, Dr. Hasselfeld said.

The explosion of telemedicine has led to the rise of companies providing care through apps on phones and tablets, he said.

“This is real care being provided to our patients through nontraditional routes, and this is a new force, one our patients see out in the marketplace,” he said. “We have to acknowledge and wrestle with the fact that convenience is a new part of what it means to [provide] access [to] care for patients.”

Heather Hirsch, MD, an internist with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview after the session that telemedicine is poised to improve care.

“I think the good is definitely going to outweigh the bad so long as the infrastructure and the legislation will allow it,” said Dr. Hirsch, who does about half of her visits in person and half through telemedicine, which she performs while at the office. “It does allow for a lot of flexibility for both patients and providers.”

But health care at academic medical centers, she said, needs to adjust to the times.

“We need [academic medicine] for so many reasons,” she said, “but the reality is that it moves very slowly, and the old infrastructure and the slowness to catch up with technology is the worry.”

Dr. Hasselfeld reported financial relationships with Humana and TRUE-See Systems.

A fertility procedure that mixes genetic material from three people to prevent couples from having children with certain debilitating and potentially fatal inherited disorders is now legal in two countries: the United Kingdom and Australia.

Australia’s senate passed a bill on March 30 amending pre-existing laws to allow the procedure in certain circumstances.

The goal of this procedure is to prevent genetic disorders caused by defective mitochondria, the power plants inside our cells that provide energy for normal growth and development. When mitochondria don’t produce any energy at all, the resulting genetic disorders are quickly fatal. When mitochondria make only a little energy, children can have severe illnesses and disabilities.

“The outcomes from this problem are really severe, and it’s highly likely that the baby will be very sick or die,” says Arthur Caplan, PhD, head of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Mitochondria have a little bit of DNA, and children inherit them from their mother. To avoid children inheriting this damaged genetic material, mitochondrial donation, also known as three-parent in vitro fertilization (IVF), takes the nucleus, which contains most of the DNA that makes us who we are, from an egg of the mother and puts it into a donated egg from a woman with healthy mitochondria.

The egg is then fertilized with sperm through IVF, and the resulting embryo has genetic material from two women and one man.

One ethical conundrum about mitochondrial donation is that any child conceived this way would inherit modified DNA and pass that along to their own children.

“I think it’s likely that we are going to go down this road to repair disease,” Dr. Caplan says. “I don’t think all genetic engineering of embryos is wrong, but we have to draw the line between enhancement versus treating disease.”

For couples who want a child that shares at least some of their own DNA, there are other ways to have a child without damaged mitochondria. One option would be genetic screening of their embryos to find healthy embryos without this defect, which would work for some women who have relatively few mitochondrial mutations. Another alternative is using a donor egg from a woman with healthy mitochondria.

Mitochondrial donation may appeal to couples who want their children to have a genetic connection to both parents, Dr. Caplan says. But prospective parents also need to be aware that this procedure is relatively new and, unlike egg donation, doesn’t have a long track record of success.

“It looks promising, but we don’t have the full safety picture yet, and we’re not going to start to get it for another decade or so,” Dr. Caplan cautions. “I do think it’s worth offering as one option, but you also have to get people to think about how important it is to have a biological child together and make sure that they understand that even if we try this technique, we don’t know the long-term outcomes for children yet.”

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

A fertility procedure that mixes genetic material from three people to prevent couples from having children with certain debilitating and potentially fatal inherited disorders is now legal in two countries: the United Kingdom and Australia.

Australia’s senate passed a bill on March 30 amending pre-existing laws to allow the procedure in certain circumstances.

The goal of this procedure is to prevent genetic disorders caused by defective mitochondria, the power plants inside our cells that provide energy for normal growth and development. When mitochondria don’t produce any energy at all, the resulting genetic disorders are quickly fatal. When mitochondria make only a little energy, children can have severe illnesses and disabilities.

“The outcomes from this problem are really severe, and it’s highly likely that the baby will be very sick or die,” says Arthur Caplan, PhD, head of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Mitochondria have a little bit of DNA, and children inherit them from their mother. To avoid children inheriting this damaged genetic material, mitochondrial donation, also known as three-parent in vitro fertilization (IVF), takes the nucleus, which contains most of the DNA that makes us who we are, from an egg of the mother and puts it into a donated egg from a woman with healthy mitochondria.

The egg is then fertilized with sperm through IVF, and the resulting embryo has genetic material from two women and one man.

One ethical conundrum about mitochondrial donation is that any child conceived this way would inherit modified DNA and pass that along to their own children.

“I think it’s likely that we are going to go down this road to repair disease,” Dr. Caplan says. “I don’t think all genetic engineering of embryos is wrong, but we have to draw the line between enhancement versus treating disease.”

For couples who want a child that shares at least some of their own DNA, there are other ways to have a child without damaged mitochondria. One option would be genetic screening of their embryos to find healthy embryos without this defect, which would work for some women who have relatively few mitochondrial mutations. Another alternative is using a donor egg from a woman with healthy mitochondria.

Mitochondrial donation may appeal to couples who want their children to have a genetic connection to both parents, Dr. Caplan says. But prospective parents also need to be aware that this procedure is relatively new and, unlike egg donation, doesn’t have a long track record of success.

“It looks promising, but we don’t have the full safety picture yet, and we’re not going to start to get it for another decade or so,” Dr. Caplan cautions. “I do think it’s worth offering as one option, but you also have to get people to think about how important it is to have a biological child together and make sure that they understand that even if we try this technique, we don’t know the long-term outcomes for children yet.”

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

A fertility procedure that mixes genetic material from three people to prevent couples from having children with certain debilitating and potentially fatal inherited disorders is now legal in two countries: the United Kingdom and Australia.

Australia’s senate passed a bill on March 30 amending pre-existing laws to allow the procedure in certain circumstances.

The goal of this procedure is to prevent genetic disorders caused by defective mitochondria, the power plants inside our cells that provide energy for normal growth and development. When mitochondria don’t produce any energy at all, the resulting genetic disorders are quickly fatal. When mitochondria make only a little energy, children can have severe illnesses and disabilities.

“The outcomes from this problem are really severe, and it’s highly likely that the baby will be very sick or die,” says Arthur Caplan, PhD, head of the division of medical ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Mitochondria have a little bit of DNA, and children inherit them from their mother. To avoid children inheriting this damaged genetic material, mitochondrial donation, also known as three-parent in vitro fertilization (IVF), takes the nucleus, which contains most of the DNA that makes us who we are, from an egg of the mother and puts it into a donated egg from a woman with healthy mitochondria.

The egg is then fertilized with sperm through IVF, and the resulting embryo has genetic material from two women and one man.

One ethical conundrum about mitochondrial donation is that any child conceived this way would inherit modified DNA and pass that along to their own children.

“I think it’s likely that we are going to go down this road to repair disease,” Dr. Caplan says. “I don’t think all genetic engineering of embryos is wrong, but we have to draw the line between enhancement versus treating disease.”

For couples who want a child that shares at least some of their own DNA, there are other ways to have a child without damaged mitochondria. One option would be genetic screening of their embryos to find healthy embryos without this defect, which would work for some women who have relatively few mitochondrial mutations. Another alternative is using a donor egg from a woman with healthy mitochondria.

Mitochondrial donation may appeal to couples who want their children to have a genetic connection to both parents, Dr. Caplan says. But prospective parents also need to be aware that this procedure is relatively new and, unlike egg donation, doesn’t have a long track record of success.

“It looks promising, but we don’t have the full safety picture yet, and we’re not going to start to get it for another decade or so,” Dr. Caplan cautions. “I do think it’s worth offering as one option, but you also have to get people to think about how important it is to have a biological child together and make sure that they understand that even if we try this technique, we don’t know the long-term outcomes for children yet.”

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

About 60% of physicians cite documenting information in the electronic health record and other paperwork as major contributors to burnout. Physicians have been working with a variety of ways to reduce their documentation burdens; could one of them be right for you?

Two methods involve human scribes – working either on-site or off-site. Two other methods involve digital solutions: The first is widely used speech-to-text software, which requires the doctors to manually enter the text into the EHR; the second uses artificial intelligence (AI) to not only turn speech into text but to also automatically organize it and enter it into the EHR.

These AI solutions, which are only a few years old, are widely considered to be a work in progress – but many doctors who have used these products are impressed.
 

Other people do the documenting: On-site scribes

“It’s estimated that now one in five to one in eight doctors use scribes,” said Jeffrey A. Gold, MD, an internist who has studied the phenomenon. Utilization is already very high in emergency medicine and has been surging in specialties such as orthopedic surgery; it is also growing in primary care.

Scribes work with the doctor and enter information into the EHR. Their numbers have reportedly been rising in recent years, as more doctors look for ways to cut back on their documentation, according to Dr. Gold, vice chair for quality and safety at the department of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The price tag of $33,000 a year or more for an on-site scribe is a major barrier. And because the typical scribe only works for 1-1.5 years, they must be constantly hired and trained, which is done by scribing services such as Scrivas in Miami.

However, Scrivas CEO Fernando G. Mendoza, MD, said scribes typically pay for themselves because they allow physicians to see more patients. Scribes can save doctors 2-3 hours of work per day, increase reimbursement by around 20% by producing more detailed notes, and improve satisfaction for both patients and doctors, according to several studies. In one study, physician documentation time significantly decreased, averaging 3 minutes per patient and 36 minutes per session.

Despite these possible savings, many health systems resisted hiring scribes for their employed physicians until the past few years, according to Kevin Brady, president of Physicians Angels, a scribing service based in Toledo, Ohio. “They figured they’d just spent millions on EHRs and didn’t want to spend any more,” he said. “They were also waiting for the EHR vendors to simplify documentation, but that never happened.”

Mr. Brady said what finally convinced many systems to invest in scribes was the need to reduce physician turnover and improve recruitment. Newly minted physicians often look for jobs that don’t interfere with their leisure time.
 

On-site scribes

On-site scribes accompany the doctor into the exam room and type the note during the encounter. Typically, the note is completed when the encounter is over, allowing for orders to be carried out immediately.

The traditional scribe is a premed student who wants to get acquainted with medicine and is thus willing to make a fairly low income. This career trajectory is the reason scribes have a high turnover. As demand surged, the scribe pool was supplemented with students aspiring to other health care professions like nursing, and even with people who want to make a career of scribing.

Since scribes have to set aside time for studying, scribe companies provide each physician-customer with one or two backup scribes. Dr. Mendoza bills his scribes as “personal assistants” who can do some nonclinical tasks beyond filling in the EHR, such as reminding doctors about the need to order a test or check in on another patient briefly before moving on to the next exam room.

Dr. Gold, however, warned against allowing “functional creep,” where scribes are asked to carry out tasks beyond their abilities, such as interpreting medical data. He added that doctors are expected to read through and sign all scribe-generated orders.

Some practices grow their own scribes, cross-training their medical assistants (MAs) to do the work. This addresses the turnover problem and could reduce costs. MAs already know clinical terms and how the doctor works, and they may be able to get special training at a local community college. However, some MAs do not want this extra work, and in any case, the work would take them away from other duties.

How often do physicians use their scribes? “Our doctors generally use them for all of their visits, but surgeons tend to limit use to their clinic days when they’re not in surgery,” said Tony Andrulonis, MD, president of ScribeAmerica in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
 

Virtual scribes work off-site

Virtual scribes, who operate remotely from the doctor and can cost up to $10 less per hour than on-site scribes, got a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic because they fit well with telemedicine visits. Furthermore, the growing availability of virtual scribes from abroad has made scribes even more affordable.

“When doctors could no longer work on-site due to the pandemic, they replaced their on-site scribes with virtual scribes, and to some extent this trend is still going on,” Dr. Gold said.

One downside with virtual scribes is that they cannot do many of the extra tasks that on-site scribes can do. However, they are often a necessity in rural areas where on-site scribes are not available. In addition to having an audio-video connection, they may also just be on audio in areas where internet reception is poor or the patient wants privacy, Dr. Andrulonis said.

Mr. Brady said Physicians Angels uses offshore scribes from India. The company charges $16-$18 per hour, compared with $26-$28 per hour for U.S.-based virtual scribes. He said well over half of his clients are family physicians, who appreciate the lower cost.

Another advantage of offshore scribes is slower turnover and full-time availability. Mr. Brady said his scribes usually stay with the company for 5-6 years and are always available. “This is their full-time job,” Brady said.

Mr. Brady said when large organizations arrange with his company for scribes, often the goal is that the scribes pay for themselves. “They’ll tell their doctors: ‘We’ll let you have scribes as long as you see one or two more patients a day,’ ” he said. Mr. Brady then helps the organization reach that goal, which he said is easily achievable, except when doctors have no clear incentive to see more patients. He also works with clients on other goals, such as higher quality of life or time saved.
 

Speech-to-text software

For years, doctors have been using speech-to-text software to transform their speech into notes. They speak into the microphone, calling out punctuation and referring to prep-made templates for routine tasks. As they speak, the text appears on a screen. They can correct the text if necessary, and then they must put that information into the EHR.

Speech-to-text systems are used by more physicians than those using human scribes. Nuance’s Dragon Medical One system is the most popular, with more than 1000 large healthcare organizations signed up. Competitors include Dolbey, Entrada, and nVoq.

Prices are just a fraction of the cost of a human scribe. Dolbey’s Fusion Narrate system, for example, costs about $800-$850 a year per user. Doctors should shop around for these systems, because prices can vary by 30%-50%, said Wayne Kaniewski, MD, a retired family and urgent care physician and now owner and CEO of Twin Cities EMR Consulting in Minneapolis.

As a contracted reseller of the nVoq and Dolbey systems, Dr. Kaniewski provides training and support. During 13 years in business, he said machine dictation systems have become faster, more accurate, and, thanks to cloud-based technology, easier to set up.
 

Digital assistants

AI software, also known as digital assistants, takes speech-to-text software to the next logical step – organizing and automatically entering the information into the EHR. Using ambient technology, a smartphone captures the physician-patient conversation in the exam room, extracts the needed information, and distributes it in the EHR.

The cost is about one-sixth that of a human scribe, but higher than the cost for speech-to-text software because the technology still makes errors and requires a human at the software company to guide the process.

Currently about 10 companies sell digital scribes, including Nuance’s Dragon Medical One, NoteSwift, DeepScribe, and ScribeAmerica. These systems can be connected to the major EHR systems, and in some cases EHR systems have agreements with digital scribe vendors so that their systems can be seamlessly connected.

“DAX software can understand nonlinear conversations – the way normal conversations bounce from topic to topic,” said Kenneth Harper, general manager of Nuance’s Ambient Clinical Intelligence Division. “This level of technology was not possible 5 years ago.”

Mr. Harper said DAX saves doctors 6 minutes per patient on average, and 70% of doctors using it reported less burnout and fatigue. Kansas University Medical Center has been testing DAX with physicians there. Many of them no longer need to write up their notes after hours, said Denton Shanks, DO, the medical center’s digital health medical director.

One of the things Dr. Shanks likes about DAX is that it remembers all the details of a visit. As a family physician, “there are something like 15 different problems that come up in one typical visit. Before, I had to carry those problems in my head, and when I wrote up my notes at the end of the day, I might have forgotten a few of them. Not so with DAX.”

Dr. Shanks knows he has to speak clearly and unambiguously when using DAX. “DAX can only document what it hears, so I describe what I am looking at in a physical exam or I might further explain the patient’s account so DAX can pick up on it.”
 

Are digital assistants ready for doctors?

Since a human at the software company is needed to guide the system, it takes a few hours for the digital assistant to complete entries into the EHR, but vendors are looking for ways to eliminate human guidance.

“We’re definitely moving toward digital scribes, but we’re not there yet,” Dr. Gold said, pointing to a 2018 study that found a significantly higher error rate for speech recognition software than for human scribes.

Dr. Kaniewski added that digital scribes pick up a great deal of irrelevant information, making for a bloated note. “Clinicians must then edit the note down, which is more work than just dictating a concise note,” he said.

Many doctors, however, are happy with these new systems. Steven Y. Lin, MD, a family physician who has been testing a digital scribe system with 40 fellow clinicians at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, said 95% of clinicians who stayed with the trial are continuing to use the system, but he concedes that there was a relatively high dropout rate. “These people felt that they had lost control of the process when using the software.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lin is concerned that using a digital scribe may eliminate doctors’ crucial step of sitting down and writing the clinical note. Here “doctors bring together everything they have heard and then come up with the diagnosis and treatment.” He recognized that doctors could still take this step when reviewing the digital note, but it would be easy to skip.
 

What is the future for documentation aids?

Increasingly more doctors are finding ways to expedite documentation tasks. Speech-to-text software is still the most popular solution, but more physicians are now using human scribes, driven by the decisions of some large organizations to start paying for them.

However, these physicians are often expected to work harder in order for the scribes to pay for themselves, which is a solution that could, ironically, add to burnout rather than alleviate it.

Digital assistants answer these concerns because they are more affordable and are supposed to do all the work of human scribes. This software parses the physician-patient conversation into a clinical note and other data and deposits them directly into the EHR.

Most experts think digital assistants will eventually meet their promise, but it is widely thought that they’re not ready yet. It will be up to vendors like Nuance to convince skeptics that their products are ready for doctors.

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

About 60% of physicians cite documenting information in the electronic health record and other paperwork as major contributors to burnout. Physicians have been working with a variety of ways to reduce their documentation burdens; could one of them be right for you?

Two methods involve human scribes – working either on-site or off-site. Two other methods involve digital solutions: The first is widely used speech-to-text software, which requires the doctors to manually enter the text into the EHR; the second uses artificial intelligence (AI) to not only turn speech into text but to also automatically organize it and enter it into the EHR.

These AI solutions, which are only a few years old, are widely considered to be a work in progress – but many doctors who have used these products are impressed.
 

Other people do the documenting: On-site scribes

“It’s estimated that now one in five to one in eight doctors use scribes,” said Jeffrey A. Gold, MD, an internist who has studied the phenomenon. Utilization is already very high in emergency medicine and has been surging in specialties such as orthopedic surgery; it is also growing in primary care.

Scribes work with the doctor and enter information into the EHR. Their numbers have reportedly been rising in recent years, as more doctors look for ways to cut back on their documentation, according to Dr. Gold, vice chair for quality and safety at the department of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The price tag of $33,000 a year or more for an on-site scribe is a major barrier. And because the typical scribe only works for 1-1.5 years, they must be constantly hired and trained, which is done by scribing services such as Scrivas in Miami.

However, Scrivas CEO Fernando G. Mendoza, MD, said scribes typically pay for themselves because they allow physicians to see more patients. Scribes can save doctors 2-3 hours of work per day, increase reimbursement by around 20% by producing more detailed notes, and improve satisfaction for both patients and doctors, according to several studies. In one study, physician documentation time significantly decreased, averaging 3 minutes per patient and 36 minutes per session.

Despite these possible savings, many health systems resisted hiring scribes for their employed physicians until the past few years, according to Kevin Brady, president of Physicians Angels, a scribing service based in Toledo, Ohio. “They figured they’d just spent millions on EHRs and didn’t want to spend any more,” he said. “They were also waiting for the EHR vendors to simplify documentation, but that never happened.”

Mr. Brady said what finally convinced many systems to invest in scribes was the need to reduce physician turnover and improve recruitment. Newly minted physicians often look for jobs that don’t interfere with their leisure time.
 

On-site scribes

On-site scribes accompany the doctor into the exam room and type the note during the encounter. Typically, the note is completed when the encounter is over, allowing for orders to be carried out immediately.

The traditional scribe is a premed student who wants to get acquainted with medicine and is thus willing to make a fairly low income. This career trajectory is the reason scribes have a high turnover. As demand surged, the scribe pool was supplemented with students aspiring to other health care professions like nursing, and even with people who want to make a career of scribing.

Since scribes have to set aside time for studying, scribe companies provide each physician-customer with one or two backup scribes. Dr. Mendoza bills his scribes as “personal assistants” who can do some nonclinical tasks beyond filling in the EHR, such as reminding doctors about the need to order a test or check in on another patient briefly before moving on to the next exam room.

Dr. Gold, however, warned against allowing “functional creep,” where scribes are asked to carry out tasks beyond their abilities, such as interpreting medical data. He added that doctors are expected to read through and sign all scribe-generated orders.

Some practices grow their own scribes, cross-training their medical assistants (MAs) to do the work. This addresses the turnover problem and could reduce costs. MAs already know clinical terms and how the doctor works, and they may be able to get special training at a local community college. However, some MAs do not want this extra work, and in any case, the work would take them away from other duties.

How often do physicians use their scribes? “Our doctors generally use them for all of their visits, but surgeons tend to limit use to their clinic days when they’re not in surgery,” said Tony Andrulonis, MD, president of ScribeAmerica in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
 

Virtual scribes work off-site

Virtual scribes, who operate remotely from the doctor and can cost up to $10 less per hour than on-site scribes, got a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic because they fit well with telemedicine visits. Furthermore, the growing availability of virtual scribes from abroad has made scribes even more affordable.

“When doctors could no longer work on-site due to the pandemic, they replaced their on-site scribes with virtual scribes, and to some extent this trend is still going on,” Dr. Gold said.

One downside with virtual scribes is that they cannot do many of the extra tasks that on-site scribes can do. However, they are often a necessity in rural areas where on-site scribes are not available. In addition to having an audio-video connection, they may also just be on audio in areas where internet reception is poor or the patient wants privacy, Dr. Andrulonis said.

Mr. Brady said Physicians Angels uses offshore scribes from India. The company charges $16-$18 per hour, compared with $26-$28 per hour for U.S.-based virtual scribes. He said well over half of his clients are family physicians, who appreciate the lower cost.

Another advantage of offshore scribes is slower turnover and full-time availability. Mr. Brady said his scribes usually stay with the company for 5-6 years and are always available. “This is their full-time job,” Brady said.

Mr. Brady said when large organizations arrange with his company for scribes, often the goal is that the scribes pay for themselves. “They’ll tell their doctors: ‘We’ll let you have scribes as long as you see one or two more patients a day,’ ” he said. Mr. Brady then helps the organization reach that goal, which he said is easily achievable, except when doctors have no clear incentive to see more patients. He also works with clients on other goals, such as higher quality of life or time saved.
 

Speech-to-text software

For years, doctors have been using speech-to-text software to transform their speech into notes. They speak into the microphone, calling out punctuation and referring to prep-made templates for routine tasks. As they speak, the text appears on a screen. They can correct the text if necessary, and then they must put that information into the EHR.

Speech-to-text systems are used by more physicians than those using human scribes. Nuance’s Dragon Medical One system is the most popular, with more than 1000 large healthcare organizations signed up. Competitors include Dolbey, Entrada, and nVoq.

Prices are just a fraction of the cost of a human scribe. Dolbey’s Fusion Narrate system, for example, costs about $800-$850 a year per user. Doctors should shop around for these systems, because prices can vary by 30%-50%, said Wayne Kaniewski, MD, a retired family and urgent care physician and now owner and CEO of Twin Cities EMR Consulting in Minneapolis.

As a contracted reseller of the nVoq and Dolbey systems, Dr. Kaniewski provides training and support. During 13 years in business, he said machine dictation systems have become faster, more accurate, and, thanks to cloud-based technology, easier to set up.
 

Digital assistants

AI software, also known as digital assistants, takes speech-to-text software to the next logical step – organizing and automatically entering the information into the EHR. Using ambient technology, a smartphone captures the physician-patient conversation in the exam room, extracts the needed information, and distributes it in the EHR.

The cost is about one-sixth that of a human scribe, but higher than the cost for speech-to-text software because the technology still makes errors and requires a human at the software company to guide the process.

Currently about 10 companies sell digital scribes, including Nuance’s Dragon Medical One, NoteSwift, DeepScribe, and ScribeAmerica. These systems can be connected to the major EHR systems, and in some cases EHR systems have agreements with digital scribe vendors so that their systems can be seamlessly connected.

“DAX software can understand nonlinear conversations – the way normal conversations bounce from topic to topic,” said Kenneth Harper, general manager of Nuance’s Ambient Clinical Intelligence Division. “This level of technology was not possible 5 years ago.”

Mr. Harper said DAX saves doctors 6 minutes per patient on average, and 70% of doctors using it reported less burnout and fatigue. Kansas University Medical Center has been testing DAX with physicians there. Many of them no longer need to write up their notes after hours, said Denton Shanks, DO, the medical center’s digital health medical director.

One of the things Dr. Shanks likes about DAX is that it remembers all the details of a visit. As a family physician, “there are something like 15 different problems that come up in one typical visit. Before, I had to carry those problems in my head, and when I wrote up my notes at the end of the day, I might have forgotten a few of them. Not so with DAX.”

Dr. Shanks knows he has to speak clearly and unambiguously when using DAX. “DAX can only document what it hears, so I describe what I am looking at in a physical exam or I might further explain the patient’s account so DAX can pick up on it.”
 

Are digital assistants ready for doctors?

Since a human at the software company is needed to guide the system, it takes a few hours for the digital assistant to complete entries into the EHR, but vendors are looking for ways to eliminate human guidance.

“We’re definitely moving toward digital scribes, but we’re not there yet,” Dr. Gold said, pointing to a 2018 study that found a significantly higher error rate for speech recognition software than for human scribes.

Dr. Kaniewski added that digital scribes pick up a great deal of irrelevant information, making for a bloated note. “Clinicians must then edit the note down, which is more work than just dictating a concise note,” he said.

Many doctors, however, are happy with these new systems. Steven Y. Lin, MD, a family physician who has been testing a digital scribe system with 40 fellow clinicians at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, said 95% of clinicians who stayed with the trial are continuing to use the system, but he concedes that there was a relatively high dropout rate. “These people felt that they had lost control of the process when using the software.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lin is concerned that using a digital scribe may eliminate doctors’ crucial step of sitting down and writing the clinical note. Here “doctors bring together everything they have heard and then come up with the diagnosis and treatment.” He recognized that doctors could still take this step when reviewing the digital note, but it would be easy to skip.
 

What is the future for documentation aids?

Increasingly more doctors are finding ways to expedite documentation tasks. Speech-to-text software is still the most popular solution, but more physicians are now using human scribes, driven by the decisions of some large organizations to start paying for them.

However, these physicians are often expected to work harder in order for the scribes to pay for themselves, which is a solution that could, ironically, add to burnout rather than alleviate it.

Digital assistants answer these concerns because they are more affordable and are supposed to do all the work of human scribes. This software parses the physician-patient conversation into a clinical note and other data and deposits them directly into the EHR.

Most experts think digital assistants will eventually meet their promise, but it is widely thought that they’re not ready yet. It will be up to vendors like Nuance to convince skeptics that their products are ready for doctors.

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

About 60% of physicians cite documenting information in the electronic health record and other paperwork as major contributors to burnout. Physicians have been working with a variety of ways to reduce their documentation burdens; could one of them be right for you?

Two methods involve human scribes – working either on-site or off-site. Two other methods involve digital solutions: The first is widely used speech-to-text software, which requires the doctors to manually enter the text into the EHR; the second uses artificial intelligence (AI) to not only turn speech into text but to also automatically organize it and enter it into the EHR.

These AI solutions, which are only a few years old, are widely considered to be a work in progress – but many doctors who have used these products are impressed.
 

Other people do the documenting: On-site scribes

“It’s estimated that now one in five to one in eight doctors use scribes,” said Jeffrey A. Gold, MD, an internist who has studied the phenomenon. Utilization is already very high in emergency medicine and has been surging in specialties such as orthopedic surgery; it is also growing in primary care.

Scribes work with the doctor and enter information into the EHR. Their numbers have reportedly been rising in recent years, as more doctors look for ways to cut back on their documentation, according to Dr. Gold, vice chair for quality and safety at the department of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

The price tag of $33,000 a year or more for an on-site scribe is a major barrier. And because the typical scribe only works for 1-1.5 years, they must be constantly hired and trained, which is done by scribing services such as Scrivas in Miami.

However, Scrivas CEO Fernando G. Mendoza, MD, said scribes typically pay for themselves because they allow physicians to see more patients. Scribes can save doctors 2-3 hours of work per day, increase reimbursement by around 20% by producing more detailed notes, and improve satisfaction for both patients and doctors, according to several studies. In one study, physician documentation time significantly decreased, averaging 3 minutes per patient and 36 minutes per session.

Despite these possible savings, many health systems resisted hiring scribes for their employed physicians until the past few years, according to Kevin Brady, president of Physicians Angels, a scribing service based in Toledo, Ohio. “They figured they’d just spent millions on EHRs and didn’t want to spend any more,” he said. “They were also waiting for the EHR vendors to simplify documentation, but that never happened.”

Mr. Brady said what finally convinced many systems to invest in scribes was the need to reduce physician turnover and improve recruitment. Newly minted physicians often look for jobs that don’t interfere with their leisure time.
 

On-site scribes

On-site scribes accompany the doctor into the exam room and type the note during the encounter. Typically, the note is completed when the encounter is over, allowing for orders to be carried out immediately.

The traditional scribe is a premed student who wants to get acquainted with medicine and is thus willing to make a fairly low income. This career trajectory is the reason scribes have a high turnover. As demand surged, the scribe pool was supplemented with students aspiring to other health care professions like nursing, and even with people who want to make a career of scribing.

Since scribes have to set aside time for studying, scribe companies provide each physician-customer with one or two backup scribes. Dr. Mendoza bills his scribes as “personal assistants” who can do some nonclinical tasks beyond filling in the EHR, such as reminding doctors about the need to order a test or check in on another patient briefly before moving on to the next exam room.

Dr. Gold, however, warned against allowing “functional creep,” where scribes are asked to carry out tasks beyond their abilities, such as interpreting medical data. He added that doctors are expected to read through and sign all scribe-generated orders.

Some practices grow their own scribes, cross-training their medical assistants (MAs) to do the work. This addresses the turnover problem and could reduce costs. MAs already know clinical terms and how the doctor works, and they may be able to get special training at a local community college. However, some MAs do not want this extra work, and in any case, the work would take them away from other duties.

How often do physicians use their scribes? “Our doctors generally use them for all of their visits, but surgeons tend to limit use to their clinic days when they’re not in surgery,” said Tony Andrulonis, MD, president of ScribeAmerica in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
 

Virtual scribes work off-site

Virtual scribes, who operate remotely from the doctor and can cost up to $10 less per hour than on-site scribes, got a boost during the COVID-19 pandemic because they fit well with telemedicine visits. Furthermore, the growing availability of virtual scribes from abroad has made scribes even more affordable.

“When doctors could no longer work on-site due to the pandemic, they replaced their on-site scribes with virtual scribes, and to some extent this trend is still going on,” Dr. Gold said.

One downside with virtual scribes is that they cannot do many of the extra tasks that on-site scribes can do. However, they are often a necessity in rural areas where on-site scribes are not available. In addition to having an audio-video connection, they may also just be on audio in areas where internet reception is poor or the patient wants privacy, Dr. Andrulonis said.

Mr. Brady said Physicians Angels uses offshore scribes from India. The company charges $16-$18 per hour, compared with $26-$28 per hour for U.S.-based virtual scribes. He said well over half of his clients are family physicians, who appreciate the lower cost.

Another advantage of offshore scribes is slower turnover and full-time availability. Mr. Brady said his scribes usually stay with the company for 5-6 years and are always available. “This is their full-time job,” Brady said.

Mr. Brady said when large organizations arrange with his company for scribes, often the goal is that the scribes pay for themselves. “They’ll tell their doctors: ‘We’ll let you have scribes as long as you see one or two more patients a day,’ ” he said. Mr. Brady then helps the organization reach that goal, which he said is easily achievable, except when doctors have no clear incentive to see more patients. He also works with clients on other goals, such as higher quality of life or time saved.
 

Speech-to-text software

For years, doctors have been using speech-to-text software to transform their speech into notes. They speak into the microphone, calling out punctuation and referring to prep-made templates for routine tasks. As they speak, the text appears on a screen. They can correct the text if necessary, and then they must put that information into the EHR.

Speech-to-text systems are used by more physicians than those using human scribes. Nuance’s Dragon Medical One system is the most popular, with more than 1000 large healthcare organizations signed up. Competitors include Dolbey, Entrada, and nVoq.

Prices are just a fraction of the cost of a human scribe. Dolbey’s Fusion Narrate system, for example, costs about $800-$850 a year per user. Doctors should shop around for these systems, because prices can vary by 30%-50%, said Wayne Kaniewski, MD, a retired family and urgent care physician and now owner and CEO of Twin Cities EMR Consulting in Minneapolis.

As a contracted reseller of the nVoq and Dolbey systems, Dr. Kaniewski provides training and support. During 13 years in business, he said machine dictation systems have become faster, more accurate, and, thanks to cloud-based technology, easier to set up.
 

Digital assistants

AI software, also known as digital assistants, takes speech-to-text software to the next logical step – organizing and automatically entering the information into the EHR. Using ambient technology, a smartphone captures the physician-patient conversation in the exam room, extracts the needed information, and distributes it in the EHR.

The cost is about one-sixth that of a human scribe, but higher than the cost for speech-to-text software because the technology still makes errors and requires a human at the software company to guide the process.

Currently about 10 companies sell digital scribes, including Nuance’s Dragon Medical One, NoteSwift, DeepScribe, and ScribeAmerica. These systems can be connected to the major EHR systems, and in some cases EHR systems have agreements with digital scribe vendors so that their systems can be seamlessly connected.

“DAX software can understand nonlinear conversations – the way normal conversations bounce from topic to topic,” said Kenneth Harper, general manager of Nuance’s Ambient Clinical Intelligence Division. “This level of technology was not possible 5 years ago.”

Mr. Harper said DAX saves doctors 6 minutes per patient on average, and 70% of doctors using it reported less burnout and fatigue. Kansas University Medical Center has been testing DAX with physicians there. Many of them no longer need to write up their notes after hours, said Denton Shanks, DO, the medical center’s digital health medical director.

One of the things Dr. Shanks likes about DAX is that it remembers all the details of a visit. As a family physician, “there are something like 15 different problems that come up in one typical visit. Before, I had to carry those problems in my head, and when I wrote up my notes at the end of the day, I might have forgotten a few of them. Not so with DAX.”

Dr. Shanks knows he has to speak clearly and unambiguously when using DAX. “DAX can only document what it hears, so I describe what I am looking at in a physical exam or I might further explain the patient’s account so DAX can pick up on it.”
 

Are digital assistants ready for doctors?

Since a human at the software company is needed to guide the system, it takes a few hours for the digital assistant to complete entries into the EHR, but vendors are looking for ways to eliminate human guidance.

“We’re definitely moving toward digital scribes, but we’re not there yet,” Dr. Gold said, pointing to a 2018 study that found a significantly higher error rate for speech recognition software than for human scribes.

Dr. Kaniewski added that digital scribes pick up a great deal of irrelevant information, making for a bloated note. “Clinicians must then edit the note down, which is more work than just dictating a concise note,” he said.

Many doctors, however, are happy with these new systems. Steven Y. Lin, MD, a family physician who has been testing a digital scribe system with 40 fellow clinicians at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, said 95% of clinicians who stayed with the trial are continuing to use the system, but he concedes that there was a relatively high dropout rate. “These people felt that they had lost control of the process when using the software.”

Furthermore, Dr. Lin is concerned that using a digital scribe may eliminate doctors’ crucial step of sitting down and writing the clinical note. Here “doctors bring together everything they have heard and then come up with the diagnosis and treatment.” He recognized that doctors could still take this step when reviewing the digital note, but it would be easy to skip.
 

What is the future for documentation aids?

Increasingly more doctors are finding ways to expedite documentation tasks. Speech-to-text software is still the most popular solution, but more physicians are now using human scribes, driven by the decisions of some large organizations to start paying for them.

However, these physicians are often expected to work harder in order for the scribes to pay for themselves, which is a solution that could, ironically, add to burnout rather than alleviate it.

Digital assistants answer these concerns because they are more affordable and are supposed to do all the work of human scribes. This software parses the physician-patient conversation into a clinical note and other data and deposits them directly into the EHR.

Most experts think digital assistants will eventually meet their promise, but it is widely thought that they’re not ready yet. It will be up to vendors like Nuance to convince skeptics that their products are ready for doctors.

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

Transvaginal mesh was found to be safe and effective for patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when compared with native tissue repair (NTR) in a 3-year trial.

Researchers, led by Bruce S. Kahn, MD, with the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Scripps Clinic in San Diego evaluated the two surgical treatment methods and published their findings in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

At completion of the 3-year follow-up in 2016, there were 401 participants in the transvaginal mesh group and 171 in the NTR group.

The prospective, nonrandomized, parallel-cohort, 27-site trial used a primary composite endpoint of anatomical success; subjective success (vaginal bulging); retreatment measures; and serious device-related or serious procedure-related adverse events.

The secondary endpoint was a composite outcome similar to the primary composite outcome but with anatomical success more stringently defined as POP quantification (POP-Q) point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.

The secondary outcome was added to this trial because investigators had criticized the primary endpoint, set by the Food and Drug Administration, because it included anatomic outcome measures that were the same for inclusion criteria (POP-Q point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.)

The secondary-outcome composite also included quality-of-life measures, mesh exposure, and mesh- and procedure-related complications.
 

Outcomes similar for both groups

The primary outcome demonstrated transvaginal mesh was not superior to native tissue repair (P =.056).

In the secondary outcome, superiority of transvaginal mesh over native tissue repair was shown (P =.009), with a propensity score–adjusted difference of 10.6% (90% confidence interval, 3.3%-17.9%) in favor of transvaginal mesh.

The authors noted that subjective success regarding vaginal bulging, which is important in patient satisfaction, was high and not statistically different between the two groups.

Additionally, transvaginal mesh repair was as safe as NTR regarding serious device-related and/or serious procedure-related side effects.

For the primary safety endpoint, 3.1% in the mesh group and 2.7% in the native tissue repair group experienced serious adverse events, demonstrating that mesh was noninferior to NTR.
 

Research results have been mixed

Unanswered questions surround surgical options for POP, which, the authors wrote, “affects 3%-6% of women based on symptoms and up to 50% of women based on vaginal examination.”

The FDA in 2011 issued 522 postmarket surveillance study orders for companies that market transvaginal mesh for POP.

Research results have varied and contentious debate has continued in the field. Some studies have shown that mesh has better subjective and objective outcomes than NTR in the anterior compartment. Others have found more complications with transvaginal mesh, such as mesh exposure and painful intercourse.

Complicating comparisons, early versions of the mesh used were larger and denser than today’s versions.

In this postmarket study, patients received either the Uphold LITE brand of transvaginal mesh or native tissue repair for surgical treatment of POP.
 

Expert: This study unlikely to change minds

In an accompanying editorial, John O.L. DeLancey, MD, professor of gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that so far there’s been a lack of randomized trials that could answer whether mesh surgeries result in fewer symptoms or result in sufficient improvements in anatomy to justify their additional risk.

This study may not help with the decision. Dr. DeLancey wrote: “Will this study change the minds of either side of this debate? Probably not. The two sides are deeply entrenched in their positions.”

Two considerations are important in thinking about the issue, he said. Surgical outcomes for POP are “not as good as we would hope.” Also, many women have had serious complications with mesh operations.

He wrote: “Mesh litigation has resulted in more $8 billion in settlements, which is many times the $1 billion annual national cost of providing care for prolapse. Those of us who practice in referral centers have seen women with devastating problems, even though they probably represent a small fraction of cases.”

Dr. DeLancey highlighted some limitations of the study by Dr. Kahn and colleagues, especially regarding differences in the groups studied and the design of the study.

“For example,” he explained, “65% of individuals in the mesh-repair group had a prior hysterectomy as opposed to 30% in the native tissue repair group. In addition, some of the operations in the native tissue group are not typical choices; for example, hysteropexy was used for some patients and had a 47% failure rate.”

He said the all-or-nothing approach to surgical solutions may be clouding the debate – in other words mesh or no mesh for women as a group.

“Rather than asking whether mesh is better than no mesh, knowing which women (if any) stand to benefit from mesh is the critical question. We need to understand, for each woman, what structural failures exist so that we can target our interventions to correct them,” he wrote.

This study was sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kahn disclosed research support from Solaire, payments from AbbVie and Douchenay as a speaker, payments from Caldera and Cytuity (Boston Scientific) as a medical consultant, and payment from Johnson & Johnson as an expert witness. One coauthor disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Medtronic and Boston Scientific (both unrestricted educational grants for cadaveric lab). Another is chief medical officer at Axonics. One study coauthor receives research funding from Axonics and is a consultant for Group Dynamics, Medpace, and FirstThought. One coauthor received research support, is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and is an expert witness for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. DeLancey declared no relevant financial relationships.

Transvaginal mesh was found to be safe and effective for patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when compared with native tissue repair (NTR) in a 3-year trial.

Researchers, led by Bruce S. Kahn, MD, with the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Scripps Clinic in San Diego evaluated the two surgical treatment methods and published their findings in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

At completion of the 3-year follow-up in 2016, there were 401 participants in the transvaginal mesh group and 171 in the NTR group.

The prospective, nonrandomized, parallel-cohort, 27-site trial used a primary composite endpoint of anatomical success; subjective success (vaginal bulging); retreatment measures; and serious device-related or serious procedure-related adverse events.

The secondary endpoint was a composite outcome similar to the primary composite outcome but with anatomical success more stringently defined as POP quantification (POP-Q) point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.

The secondary outcome was added to this trial because investigators had criticized the primary endpoint, set by the Food and Drug Administration, because it included anatomic outcome measures that were the same for inclusion criteria (POP-Q point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.)

The secondary-outcome composite also included quality-of-life measures, mesh exposure, and mesh- and procedure-related complications.
 

Outcomes similar for both groups

The primary outcome demonstrated transvaginal mesh was not superior to native tissue repair (P =.056).

In the secondary outcome, superiority of transvaginal mesh over native tissue repair was shown (P =.009), with a propensity score–adjusted difference of 10.6% (90% confidence interval, 3.3%-17.9%) in favor of transvaginal mesh.

The authors noted that subjective success regarding vaginal bulging, which is important in patient satisfaction, was high and not statistically different between the two groups.

Additionally, transvaginal mesh repair was as safe as NTR regarding serious device-related and/or serious procedure-related side effects.

For the primary safety endpoint, 3.1% in the mesh group and 2.7% in the native tissue repair group experienced serious adverse events, demonstrating that mesh was noninferior to NTR.
 

Research results have been mixed

Unanswered questions surround surgical options for POP, which, the authors wrote, “affects 3%-6% of women based on symptoms and up to 50% of women based on vaginal examination.”

The FDA in 2011 issued 522 postmarket surveillance study orders for companies that market transvaginal mesh for POP.

Research results have varied and contentious debate has continued in the field. Some studies have shown that mesh has better subjective and objective outcomes than NTR in the anterior compartment. Others have found more complications with transvaginal mesh, such as mesh exposure and painful intercourse.

Complicating comparisons, early versions of the mesh used were larger and denser than today’s versions.

In this postmarket study, patients received either the Uphold LITE brand of transvaginal mesh or native tissue repair for surgical treatment of POP.
 

Expert: This study unlikely to change minds

In an accompanying editorial, John O.L. DeLancey, MD, professor of gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that so far there’s been a lack of randomized trials that could answer whether mesh surgeries result in fewer symptoms or result in sufficient improvements in anatomy to justify their additional risk.

This study may not help with the decision. Dr. DeLancey wrote: “Will this study change the minds of either side of this debate? Probably not. The two sides are deeply entrenched in their positions.”

Two considerations are important in thinking about the issue, he said. Surgical outcomes for POP are “not as good as we would hope.” Also, many women have had serious complications with mesh operations.

He wrote: “Mesh litigation has resulted in more $8 billion in settlements, which is many times the $1 billion annual national cost of providing care for prolapse. Those of us who practice in referral centers have seen women with devastating problems, even though they probably represent a small fraction of cases.”

Dr. DeLancey highlighted some limitations of the study by Dr. Kahn and colleagues, especially regarding differences in the groups studied and the design of the study.

“For example,” he explained, “65% of individuals in the mesh-repair group had a prior hysterectomy as opposed to 30% in the native tissue repair group. In addition, some of the operations in the native tissue group are not typical choices; for example, hysteropexy was used for some patients and had a 47% failure rate.”

He said the all-or-nothing approach to surgical solutions may be clouding the debate – in other words mesh or no mesh for women as a group.

“Rather than asking whether mesh is better than no mesh, knowing which women (if any) stand to benefit from mesh is the critical question. We need to understand, for each woman, what structural failures exist so that we can target our interventions to correct them,” he wrote.

This study was sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kahn disclosed research support from Solaire, payments from AbbVie and Douchenay as a speaker, payments from Caldera and Cytuity (Boston Scientific) as a medical consultant, and payment from Johnson & Johnson as an expert witness. One coauthor disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Medtronic and Boston Scientific (both unrestricted educational grants for cadaveric lab). Another is chief medical officer at Axonics. One study coauthor receives research funding from Axonics and is a consultant for Group Dynamics, Medpace, and FirstThought. One coauthor received research support, is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and is an expert witness for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. DeLancey declared no relevant financial relationships.

Transvaginal mesh was found to be safe and effective for patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when compared with native tissue repair (NTR) in a 3-year trial.

Researchers, led by Bruce S. Kahn, MD, with the department of obstetrics & gynecology at Scripps Clinic in San Diego evaluated the two surgical treatment methods and published their findings in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

At completion of the 3-year follow-up in 2016, there were 401 participants in the transvaginal mesh group and 171 in the NTR group.

The prospective, nonrandomized, parallel-cohort, 27-site trial used a primary composite endpoint of anatomical success; subjective success (vaginal bulging); retreatment measures; and serious device-related or serious procedure-related adverse events.

The secondary endpoint was a composite outcome similar to the primary composite outcome but with anatomical success more stringently defined as POP quantification (POP-Q) point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.

The secondary outcome was added to this trial because investigators had criticized the primary endpoint, set by the Food and Drug Administration, because it included anatomic outcome measures that were the same for inclusion criteria (POP-Q point Ba < 0 and/or C < 0.)

The secondary-outcome composite also included quality-of-life measures, mesh exposure, and mesh- and procedure-related complications.
 

Outcomes similar for both groups

The primary outcome demonstrated transvaginal mesh was not superior to native tissue repair (P =.056).

In the secondary outcome, superiority of transvaginal mesh over native tissue repair was shown (P =.009), with a propensity score–adjusted difference of 10.6% (90% confidence interval, 3.3%-17.9%) in favor of transvaginal mesh.

The authors noted that subjective success regarding vaginal bulging, which is important in patient satisfaction, was high and not statistically different between the two groups.

Additionally, transvaginal mesh repair was as safe as NTR regarding serious device-related and/or serious procedure-related side effects.

For the primary safety endpoint, 3.1% in the mesh group and 2.7% in the native tissue repair group experienced serious adverse events, demonstrating that mesh was noninferior to NTR.
 

Research results have been mixed

Unanswered questions surround surgical options for POP, which, the authors wrote, “affects 3%-6% of women based on symptoms and up to 50% of women based on vaginal examination.”

The FDA in 2011 issued 522 postmarket surveillance study orders for companies that market transvaginal mesh for POP.

Research results have varied and contentious debate has continued in the field. Some studies have shown that mesh has better subjective and objective outcomes than NTR in the anterior compartment. Others have found more complications with transvaginal mesh, such as mesh exposure and painful intercourse.

Complicating comparisons, early versions of the mesh used were larger and denser than today’s versions.

In this postmarket study, patients received either the Uphold LITE brand of transvaginal mesh or native tissue repair for surgical treatment of POP.
 

Expert: This study unlikely to change minds

In an accompanying editorial, John O.L. DeLancey, MD, professor of gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that so far there’s been a lack of randomized trials that could answer whether mesh surgeries result in fewer symptoms or result in sufficient improvements in anatomy to justify their additional risk.

This study may not help with the decision. Dr. DeLancey wrote: “Will this study change the minds of either side of this debate? Probably not. The two sides are deeply entrenched in their positions.”

Two considerations are important in thinking about the issue, he said. Surgical outcomes for POP are “not as good as we would hope.” Also, many women have had serious complications with mesh operations.

He wrote: “Mesh litigation has resulted in more $8 billion in settlements, which is many times the $1 billion annual national cost of providing care for prolapse. Those of us who practice in referral centers have seen women with devastating problems, even though they probably represent a small fraction of cases.”

Dr. DeLancey highlighted some limitations of the study by Dr. Kahn and colleagues, especially regarding differences in the groups studied and the design of the study.

“For example,” he explained, “65% of individuals in the mesh-repair group had a prior hysterectomy as opposed to 30% in the native tissue repair group. In addition, some of the operations in the native tissue group are not typical choices; for example, hysteropexy was used for some patients and had a 47% failure rate.”

He said the all-or-nothing approach to surgical solutions may be clouding the debate – in other words mesh or no mesh for women as a group.

“Rather than asking whether mesh is better than no mesh, knowing which women (if any) stand to benefit from mesh is the critical question. We need to understand, for each woman, what structural failures exist so that we can target our interventions to correct them,” he wrote.

This study was sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kahn disclosed research support from Solaire, payments from AbbVie and Douchenay as a speaker, payments from Caldera and Cytuity (Boston Scientific) as a medical consultant, and payment from Johnson & Johnson as an expert witness. One coauthor disclosed that money was paid to her institution from Medtronic and Boston Scientific (both unrestricted educational grants for cadaveric lab). Another is chief medical officer at Axonics. One study coauthor receives research funding from Axonics and is a consultant for Group Dynamics, Medpace, and FirstThought. One coauthor received research support, is a consultant for Boston Scientific, and is an expert witness for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. DeLancey declared no relevant financial relationships.

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”

When it comes to mammography recommendations state comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans vary considerably and don’t always closely match the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations for mammography frequency in women at average risk for breast cancer, according to a new cross-sectional study of CCC plans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The recommended age for initiation varied widely among CCC plans, and nearly one in five bore little resemblance at all to the USPTF recommendations.

According to the authors of the study, the variation among suggested ages of initiation may indicate a lack of consensus among state agencies. “For a recommendation tied to service coverage, this is a serious gap in public health policy,” they wrote in the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

CCC plans include goals, measurable objectives, and evidence-based strategies to combat cancers that are both common and preventable. They include input from multiple groups, frequently take 4-6 years to create, and should be updated regularly. Funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requires that the plans include data cancer screening prevalence rates and specific objectives and strategies.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in the United States, and the second highest cause of cancer death. Regular, high-quality screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 25%-31% among women aged 50-69. As a result, the American Cancer Society, the USPSTF, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians have produced guidelines for mammography screening in women at average risk of breast cancer.

Although the benefits of screening are widely accepted, there is disagreement about the ages it should be initiated and ended. These inconsistencies stem from different evidence used to support recommendations, as well as different standards for benefits and harms from screening. Common concerns include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, and radiation damage from mammography.

Because these benefits and harms can vary based on age and values, there is an emphasis on shared decision-making between clinicians and women, especially those aged 40-49.

The most recent USPTF recommendation, issued in 2016, states that women aged 50-74 with average risk should be screened with mammography every 2 years. The choice of mammography in average-risk women under 50 should be approached on an individual basis. USPTF defines average risk as having no signs, symptoms, or previous diagnosis of breast cancer, and no family history or genetic causes for concern.

In the new study, researchers conducted a point-in-time evaluation of CCC plans from 50 states and the District of Columbia, between Nov. 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021.

Thirty-one percent of the plans included the complete USPTF recommendations of biennial mammography between ages 50 and 74; 51% included some, but not all of the USPTF recommendations; and 18% were not consistent at all with USPTF recommendations.

Overall, 59% of plans recommended initiation at age 50 and 37% at age 40, which is consistent with the older 2009 USPSTF recommendation. Eight percent of plans recommended starting at both 40 and 50, and 20% of plans had no recommended age of initiation.

Among the plans that were partially consistent with USPTF, 73% recommended initiation of mammography at age 40 and 31% at age 50. Eighty-five percent did not include an age to stop mammography; 15% did not include a recommended frequency; and 15% had an initiation age other than 40 or 50. Eighty-five percent of plans partially consistent with USPSTF included a recommendation that mammography should be conducted biennially.

The authors state that CCC plans could be improved by a unified emphasis on biennial screening of the general population of women aged 50-74, as well as clear differentiation between women at average risk and those at high risk, who could be screened at ages younger than 50 in consultation with their physician.

The study is limited by the fact that plans were reviewed a single time, while state CCC plans are updated with varying periodicity. The authors agree that implementation of population-based screening should be tailored to individual states and health care systems.

When it comes to mammography recommendations state comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans vary considerably and don’t always closely match the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations for mammography frequency in women at average risk for breast cancer, according to a new cross-sectional study of CCC plans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The recommended age for initiation varied widely among CCC plans, and nearly one in five bore little resemblance at all to the USPTF recommendations.

According to the authors of the study, the variation among suggested ages of initiation may indicate a lack of consensus among state agencies. “For a recommendation tied to service coverage, this is a serious gap in public health policy,” they wrote in the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

CCC plans include goals, measurable objectives, and evidence-based strategies to combat cancers that are both common and preventable. They include input from multiple groups, frequently take 4-6 years to create, and should be updated regularly. Funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requires that the plans include data cancer screening prevalence rates and specific objectives and strategies.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in the United States, and the second highest cause of cancer death. Regular, high-quality screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 25%-31% among women aged 50-69. As a result, the American Cancer Society, the USPSTF, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians have produced guidelines for mammography screening in women at average risk of breast cancer.

Although the benefits of screening are widely accepted, there is disagreement about the ages it should be initiated and ended. These inconsistencies stem from different evidence used to support recommendations, as well as different standards for benefits and harms from screening. Common concerns include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, and radiation damage from mammography.

Because these benefits and harms can vary based on age and values, there is an emphasis on shared decision-making between clinicians and women, especially those aged 40-49.

The most recent USPTF recommendation, issued in 2016, states that women aged 50-74 with average risk should be screened with mammography every 2 years. The choice of mammography in average-risk women under 50 should be approached on an individual basis. USPTF defines average risk as having no signs, symptoms, or previous diagnosis of breast cancer, and no family history or genetic causes for concern.

In the new study, researchers conducted a point-in-time evaluation of CCC plans from 50 states and the District of Columbia, between Nov. 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021.

Thirty-one percent of the plans included the complete USPTF recommendations of biennial mammography between ages 50 and 74; 51% included some, but not all of the USPTF recommendations; and 18% were not consistent at all with USPTF recommendations.

Overall, 59% of plans recommended initiation at age 50 and 37% at age 40, which is consistent with the older 2009 USPSTF recommendation. Eight percent of plans recommended starting at both 40 and 50, and 20% of plans had no recommended age of initiation.

Among the plans that were partially consistent with USPTF, 73% recommended initiation of mammography at age 40 and 31% at age 50. Eighty-five percent did not include an age to stop mammography; 15% did not include a recommended frequency; and 15% had an initiation age other than 40 or 50. Eighty-five percent of plans partially consistent with USPSTF included a recommendation that mammography should be conducted biennially.

The authors state that CCC plans could be improved by a unified emphasis on biennial screening of the general population of women aged 50-74, as well as clear differentiation between women at average risk and those at high risk, who could be screened at ages younger than 50 in consultation with their physician.

The study is limited by the fact that plans were reviewed a single time, while state CCC plans are updated with varying periodicity. The authors agree that implementation of population-based screening should be tailored to individual states and health care systems.

When it comes to mammography recommendations state comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans vary considerably and don’t always closely match the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations for mammography frequency in women at average risk for breast cancer, according to a new cross-sectional study of CCC plans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The recommended age for initiation varied widely among CCC plans, and nearly one in five bore little resemblance at all to the USPTF recommendations.

According to the authors of the study, the variation among suggested ages of initiation may indicate a lack of consensus among state agencies. “For a recommendation tied to service coverage, this is a serious gap in public health policy,” they wrote in the study published online in JAMA Network Open.

CCC plans include goals, measurable objectives, and evidence-based strategies to combat cancers that are both common and preventable. They include input from multiple groups, frequently take 4-6 years to create, and should be updated regularly. Funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requires that the plans include data cancer screening prevalence rates and specific objectives and strategies.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in the United States, and the second highest cause of cancer death. Regular, high-quality screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 25%-31% among women aged 50-69. As a result, the American Cancer Society, the USPSTF, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians have produced guidelines for mammography screening in women at average risk of breast cancer.

Although the benefits of screening are widely accepted, there is disagreement about the ages it should be initiated and ended. These inconsistencies stem from different evidence used to support recommendations, as well as different standards for benefits and harms from screening. Common concerns include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, and radiation damage from mammography.

Because these benefits and harms can vary based on age and values, there is an emphasis on shared decision-making between clinicians and women, especially those aged 40-49.

The most recent USPTF recommendation, issued in 2016, states that women aged 50-74 with average risk should be screened with mammography every 2 years. The choice of mammography in average-risk women under 50 should be approached on an individual basis. USPTF defines average risk as having no signs, symptoms, or previous diagnosis of breast cancer, and no family history or genetic causes for concern.

In the new study, researchers conducted a point-in-time evaluation of CCC plans from 50 states and the District of Columbia, between Nov. 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021.

Thirty-one percent of the plans included the complete USPTF recommendations of biennial mammography between ages 50 and 74; 51% included some, but not all of the USPTF recommendations; and 18% were not consistent at all with USPTF recommendations.

Overall, 59% of plans recommended initiation at age 50 and 37% at age 40, which is consistent with the older 2009 USPSTF recommendation. Eight percent of plans recommended starting at both 40 and 50, and 20% of plans had no recommended age of initiation.

Among the plans that were partially consistent with USPTF, 73% recommended initiation of mammography at age 40 and 31% at age 50. Eighty-five percent did not include an age to stop mammography; 15% did not include a recommended frequency; and 15% had an initiation age other than 40 or 50. Eighty-five percent of plans partially consistent with USPSTF included a recommendation that mammography should be conducted biennially.

The authors state that CCC plans could be improved by a unified emphasis on biennial screening of the general population of women aged 50-74, as well as clear differentiation between women at average risk and those at high risk, who could be screened at ages younger than 50 in consultation with their physician.

The study is limited by the fact that plans were reviewed a single time, while state CCC plans are updated with varying periodicity. The authors agree that implementation of population-based screening should be tailored to individual states and health care systems.

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade could have far-reaching impacts on residents in ob.gyn. medical programs across the country, from learning simple procedures like ultrasounds to how to manage miscarriages.

On Monday, Politico published a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, which declares Roe unconstitutional. The actual opinion is due at the end of June. If all the justices keep their positions for that vote, the 1973 court case that legalized abortion rights in the United States would no longer keep states from banning the procedure before viability, which is defined as 24-26 weeks into a pregnancy.

Loss of federal protections provided by Roe would leave a patchwork of states where providers would have to change reproductive health practices. Medical schools in those states would also have to curtail any abortion care training, experts told this news organization.

Constance Bohon, MD, co-chair of the Legislative and Liability Committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said: “As a profession, we are concerned about the possibility that there will be ob.gyn. residents who graduate without the experience and training needed to care for a patient who has complications from an abortion or a missed abortion. We are very concerned that without adequate training and access to care for these patients, the maternal mortality rate will rise.”

The loss of Roe “means that sadly, and realistically, many residents just won’t get the training, or we will need to think about mitigation strategies, like providing simulation training,” said Kavita Vinekar, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “I can assure you that without access to abortion training, the quality of ob.gyn. training will absolutely suffer.”

Twenty-two states, including large swaths of the south and Midwest, already have laws that would go into effect immediately to ban abortion in the absence of Roe. Four states, including Florida, Montana, and Indiana, would likely ban abortion, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

Almost 45% of ob.gyn. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in these states, totaling 2,638 residents as of 2022, according to a study published in April by researchers at the UCLA.

Most reproductive health care training lasts between 1-2 months during residency and includes instruction on ultrasounds, best practices in managing pregnancy complications, learning how to safely evacuate a uterus in the event of a stillbirth or miscarriage, and counseling for family planning options.
 

A glimpse at the future

The potential for a new reality is already playing out in Texas, where a law banning abortions after 6 weeks in pregnancy took effect last Sept. 1. The Ryan Program, a national initiative to teach abortion care to medical school residents, started a pilot to match resident physicians in Texas with hospital programs in other states without abortion restrictions.

The Ryan Program has matched over 40 residents since the law took effect, according to Jody Steinauer, MD, PhD, who oversees the Ryan Program at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Matching students is an arduous and timely process because students have hectic schedules, and state licensure and other regulatory issues must be worked out, she said.

“It will take a while to get systems in place to really support resident travel, and not every resident is going to be able to travel, so I’m just worried about the future impacts on patient care,” Dr. Steinauer told this news organization. “We have hundreds of residents who are not learning the skills they need, and they’re not going be able to provide evidence-based, patient-centered care.”

But Dr. Bohon expressed skepticism that the Ryan Program and other initiatives to provide training for travel residents would be sufficient. “Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this program will not be sufficient to provide training for all of the ob.gyn. residents who do not have access to abortion training because of the state where their residency is,” she said. “There are residency programs that have the capacity to have ob.gyns. get training at their programs, but there is a limited number of these positions available as well.”

She added that the Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology is actively pursuing options to provide abortion training for residents for whom such training is not available. 
 

Spillover effect

Health care professionals in states without restrictive abortion laws will also see an increase in patients seeking abortion-related care. This spike already is happening in New Mexico, which borders not only Texas, but Oklahoma and Arizona – states that have severely restricted abortion rights.

“It’s difficult in the states that will be overloaded with additional abortion care to then incorporate learners on top of that,” said Eve Espey, MD, MPH, distinguished professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “Logistically, to fill that gap in care and train at the same time will be really challenging.”

Dr. Espey said the UNM Center for Reproductive Health has already seen patients from Texas who would likely fall under an exemption in that state’s law that allows abortions if a patient faces a medical emergency if the pregnancy continues.

“Providers are so afraid of these laws, and if they’re risk adverse, they’re always going to err on the side of not taking care of the patient if you think you can get in trouble,” Dr. Espey said, pointing to patients who presented with lethal fetal anomalies or ruptured fetal membranes early in pregnancy that might fall under the medical emergency exemption.

Dr. Steinauer with the Ryan Program said that many Texas residency program directors have told her they’ve heard from applicants who are giving low ranks to residency programs in the state.

“They’re saying, ‘if we want to be able to be trained as an ob.gyn., why would we want to go to a program with such significant restrictions?’” Dr. Steinauer said. “That is a real worry.”

Most ob.gyn. medical residency programs now provide built-in abortion training, which the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated in 1995. A small majority do not. According to a 2020 research letter from the ACOG, about 11% of ob.gyn. residents said their programs hypothetically offer training without a clear process to obtain it, and 8% reported that their programs offered no such training at all.

Residents can also opt out of abortion training, although students increasingly are choosing to only opt out of certain parts, such as training for abortions provided later in pregnancies, according to Dr. Steinauer.
 

A looming ‘pipeline problem’

There were about 3,550 abortion service clinicians in 2020, 72% of whom were ob.gyns., followed by family medicine doctors and advanced practice registered nurses, according to research published in March in JAMA Internal Medicine. This number is likely not an accurate tally, however, because the authors queried a national medical claims database that did not include self-pay patients.

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a senior research scientist at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, D.C., who led the study, said states could create policies to broaden access to abortion for patients and training for medical residents.

Those include expanding laws to allow advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, allowing state Medicaid programs to opt-in for abortion payment, and establishing abortion care continuing medical education requirements for state boards of medicine for both ob.gyn. and primary care.

“Providers that practice in those restricted states will not only stop providing care there but also won’t be able to train the next generation of workforce to be able to provide that care,” Dr. Strasser said. “It’s a pipeline problem.”

States also could encourage their medical residency programs to not hold slots open for students who want to opt out of abortion care training. The University of Washington, Seattle, in 2000 eliminated slots it had been holding open for opt-out students because the state does not have restrictions on abortion.

As abortion becomes increasingly restricted across the country, Dr. Strasser said, for medical schools in “a state that continues to make abortion available, it’s essentially their duty to make that training available.”

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