MDedge Rheumatology

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

About a third of Americans say they’ve skipped medical care that they needed in the past 3 months because of concerns about the cost, according to a new survey from Gallup and West Health.

That’s the highest reported number since the pandemic began and a tripling from March to October.

Even 20% of the country’s highest-income households – earning more than $120,000 per year – said they’ve also skipped care. That’s an increase of about seven times for higher-income families since March.

“Americans tend to think there is a group of lower-income people, and they have worse health care than the rest of us, and the rest of us, we’re okay,” Tim Lash, chief strategy officer for West Health, a nonprofit focused on lowering health care costs, told CBS News.

“What we are seeing now in this survey is this group of people who are identifying themselves as struggling with health care costs is growing,” he said.

As part of the 2021 Healthcare in America Report, researchers surveyed more than 6,000 people in September and October about their concerns and experiences with affording health care and treatment. About half of respondents said health care in America has gotten worse because of the pandemic, and more than half said they’re more worried about medical costs than before.

What’s more, many Americans put off routine doctor visits at the beginning of the pandemic, and now that they’re beginning to schedule appointments again, they’re facing major costs, the survey found. Some expenses have increased in the past year, including prescription medications.

The rising costs have led many people to skip care or treatment, which can have major consequences. About 1 in 20 adults said they know a friend or family member who died during the past year because they couldn’t afford medical care, the survey found. And about 20% of adults said they or someone in their household had a health issue that grew worse after postponing care because of price.

About 23% of survey respondents said that paying for health care represents a major financial burden, which increases to a third of respondents who earn less than $48,000 per year. Out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and insurance premiums have increased, which have taken up larger portions of people’s budgets.

“We often overlook the side effect of costs, and it’s quite toxic – there is a financial toxicity that exists in health care,” Mr. Lash said. “We know when you skip treatment, that can have an impact on mortality.”

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on data from a meta-analysis of 95 studies that included nearly 30,000,000 individuals, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was 0.25% in the tested population and 40.5% among confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic infections remain potential sources of transmission for COVID-19, especially as communities reopen and public life resumes, but the percentage of these infections among those tested and among those diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been examined, wrote Qiuyue Ma, PhD, and colleagues of Peking University, Beijing.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open the researchers identified 44 cross-sectional studies, 41 cohort studies, seven case series, and three case series on transmission studies. A total of 74 studies were conducted in developed countries, including those in Europe, North America, and Asia. Approximately one-third (37) of the studies were conducted among health care workers or in-hospital patients, 17 among nursing home staff or residents, and 14 among community residents. In addition, 13 studies involved pregnant women, eight involved air or cruise ship travelers, and six involved close contacts of individuals with confirmed infections.

The meta-analysis included 29,776,306 tested individuals; 11,516 of them had asymptomatic infections.

Overall, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25%. In an analysis of different study populations, the percentage was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52%), air or cruise ship travelers (2.02%), and pregnant women (2.34%), compared against the pooled percentage.

The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50%, and this percentage was higher in pregnant women (54.11%), air or cruise ship travelers (52.91%), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53%).

The pooled percentage in the tested population was higher than the overall percentage when the mean age of the study population was 60 years or older (3.69%). By contrast, in the confirmed population, the pooled percentage was higher than the overall percentage when the study population was younger than 20 years (60.2%) or aged 20 to 39 years (49.5%).

The researchers noted in their discussion that the varying percentage of asymptomatic individuals according to community prevalence might impact the heterogeneity of the included studies. They also noted the high number of studies conducted in nursing home populations, groups in which asymptomatic individuals were more likely to be tested.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for missed studies that were not published at the time of the meta-analysis, as well as the exclusion of studies written in Chinese, the researchers noted. Other limitations included lack of follow-up on presymptomatic and covert infections, and the focus on specific populations, factors that may limit the degree to which the results can be generalized.

However, the results highlight the need to screen for asymptomatic infections, especially in countries where COVID-19 has been better controlled, the researchers said. Management strategies for asymptomatic infections, when identified, should include isolation and contact tracing similar to strategies used with confirmed cases, they added. 
 

More testing needed to catch cases early

“During the initial phase of [the] COVID-19 pandemic, testing was not widely available in the United States or the rest of the world,” Setu Patolia, MD, of Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, said in an interview. Much of the world still lacks access to COVID-19 testing, and early in the pandemic only severely symptomatic patients were tested, he said. “With new variants, particularly the Omicron variant, which may have mild or minimally symptomatic disease, asymptomatic carriers play an important role in propagation of the pandemic,” he explained. “It is important to know the asymptomatic carrier rate among the general population for the future control of [the] pandemic,” he added.

Dr. Patolia said he was surprised by the study finding that one in 400 people in the general population could be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19.

“Also, nursing home patients are more at risk of complications of COVID, and I expected that they would have a higher rate of symptomatic disease as compared to [the] general population,” said Dr. Patolia. He was also surprised by the high rate of asymptomatic infections in travelers.

“Physicians should be more aware about the asymptomatic carrier rate, particularly in travelers and nursing home patients,” he noted. “Travelers carry high risk of transferring infection from one region to another region of the world, and physicians should advise them to get tested despite the absence of symptoms,” Dr. Patolia emphasized. “Similarly, once any nursing home patient has been diagnosed with COVID-19, physicians should be more careful with the rest of the nursing home patients and test them despite the absence of the symptoms,” he added.

Dr. Patolia also recommended that pregnant women wear masks to help prevent disease transmission when visiting a doctor’s office or labor unit.

Looking ahead, there is a need for cheaper at-home testing kits so that all vulnerable populations can be tested fast and frequently, Dr. Patolia said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Patolia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

It is possible to talk to a patient for a brief moment and just know if he or she is a satisficer or a maximizer. A “satisficer” when presented with treatment options will invariably say: “I’ll do whatever you say, Doctor.” A “maximizer,” in contrast, would like a printed copy of treatment choices, then would seek a second opinion before ultimately buying an UpToDate subscription to research treatments for him or herself.

Which is more like you? Which should you be if you want to be happy? I’m mostly a satisficer and would like to present an argument for why this way is best.

This notion that we have tendencies toward maximizing or satisficing is thanks to Nobel Memorial Prize winner and all-around smart guy, Herbert A. Simon, PhD. Dr. Simon recognized that, although each person might be expected to make optimal decisions to benefit himself or herself, this is practically impossible. To do so would require an infinite amount of time and energy. He found therefore that we actually exhibit “bounded rationality;” that is, we make the best decision given the limits of time, the price of acquiring information, and even our cognitive abilities. The amount of effort we give to make a decision also depends on the situation: You might be very invested in choosing the right spouse, but not at all invested in choosing soup or salad. (Although, we all have friends who are: “Um, is there any thyme in the soup?”)

You’ll certainly recognize that people have different set points on the spectrum between being a satisficer, one who will take the first option that meets a standard, and a maximizer, one who will seek and accept only the best, even if choosing is at great cost. There are risks and benefits of each. In getting the best job, maximizers might be more successful, but satisficers seem to be happier.

How much this extends into other spheres of life is unclear. It is clear, though, that the work of choosing can come at a cost.

The psychologist Barry Schwartz, PhD, believes that, in general, having more choices leads to more anxiety, not more contentment. For example, which Christmas tree lot would you rather visit: One with hundreds of trees of half a dozen varieties? Or one with just a few trees each of Balsam and Douglas Firs? Dr. Schwartz would argue that you might waste an entire afternoon in the first lot only to bring it home and have remorse when you realize it’s a little lopsided. Or let’s say your child applied to all the Ivy League and Public Ivy schools and also threw in all the top liberal arts colleges. The anxiety of selecting the best and the terror that the “best one” might not choose him or her could be overwhelming. A key lesson is that more in life is by chance than we realize, including how straight your tree is and who gets into Princeton this year. Yet, our expectation that things will work out perfectly if only we maximize is ubiquitous. That confidence in our ability to choose correctly is, however, unwarranted. Better to do your best and know that your tree will be festive and there are many colleges which would lead to a happy life than to fret in choosing and then suffer from dashed expectations. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

Being a satisficer or maximizer is probably somewhat fixed, a personality trait, like being extroverted or conscientious. Yet, having insight can be helpful. If choosing a restaurant in Manhattan becomes an actual project for you with spreadsheets and your own statistical analysis, then go for it! Just know that if that process causes you angst and apprehension, then there is another way. Go to Eleven Madison Park, just because I say so. You might have the best dinner of your life or maybe not. At least by not choosing you’ll have the gift of time to spend picking out a tree instead.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

A recent study examined projected career earnings between the genders in a largely community-based physician population, finding a difference of about $2 million in career earnings. That a gender pay gap exists in medicine is not news – but the manner in which this study was done, the investigators’ ability to control for a number of confounding variables, and the size of the study group (over 80,000) are newsworthy.

Some of the key findings include that gender pay gaps start with your first job, and you never close the gap, even as you gain experience and efficiency. Also, the more highly remunerated your specialty, the larger the gap. The gender pay gap joins a growing list of inequities within health care. Although physician compensation is not the most important, given that nearly all physicians are well-paid, and we have much more significant inequities that lead to direct patient harm, the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further consideration.

When I was first being educated about social inequity as part of work in social determinants of health, I made the error of using “inequality” and “inequity” interchangeably. The subtle yet important difference between the two terms was quickly described to me. Inequality is a gastroenterologist getting paid more money to do a colonoscopy than a family physician. Inequity is a female gastroenterologist getting paid less than a male gastroenterologist. Global Health Europe boldly identifies that “inequity is the result of failure.” In looking at the inequity inherent in the gender pay gap, I consider what failed and why.

I’m currently making a major career change, leaving an executive leadership position to return to full-time clinical practice. There is a significant pay decrease that will accompany this change because I am in a primary care specialty. Beyond that, I am considering two employment contracts from different systems to do a similar clinical role.

One of the questions my husband asked was which will pay more over the long run. This is difficult to discern because the compensation formula each health system uses is different, even though they are based on standard national benchmarking data. It is possible that women, in general, are like I am and look for factors other than compensation to make a job decision – assuming, like I do, that it will be close enough to not matter or is generally fair. In fact, while compensation is most certainly a consideration for me, once I determined that it was likely to be in the same ballpark, I stopped comparing. Even as the sole breadwinner in our family, I take this (probably faulty) approach.
 

It’s time to reconsider how we pay physicians

Women may be more likely to gloss over compensation details that men evaluate and negotiate carefully. To change this, women must first take responsibility for being an active, informed, and engaged part of compensation negotiations. In addition, employers who value gender pay equity must negotiate in good faith, keeping in mind the well-described vulnerabilities in discussions about pay. Finally, male and female mentors and leaders should actively coach female physicians on how to approach these conversations with confidence and skill.

In primary care, female physicians spend, on average, about 15% more time with their patients during a visit. Despite spending as much time in clinic seeing patients per week, they see fewer patients, thereby generating less revenue. For compensation plans that are based on productivity, the extra time spent costs money. In this case, it costs the female physicians lost compensation.

The way in which women are more likely to practice medicine, which includes the amount of time they spend with patients, may affect clinical outcomes without directly increasing productivity. A 2017 study demonstrated that elderly patients had lower rates of mortality and readmission when cared for by a female rather than a male physician. These findings require health systems to critically evaluate what compensation plans value and to promote an appropriate balance between quality of care, quantity of care, and style of care.

Although I’ve seen gender pay inequity as blatant as two different salaries for physicians doing the same work – one male and one female – I think this is uncommon. Like many forms of inequity, the outputs are often related to a failed system rather than solely a series of individual failures. Making compensation formulas gender-blind is an important step – but it is only the first step, not the last. Recognizing that the structure of a compensation formula may be biased toward a style of medical practice more likely to be espoused by one gender is necessary as well.

The data, including the findings of this recent study, clearly identify the gender pay gap that exists in medicine, as it does in many other fields, and that it is not explainable solely by differences in specialties, work hours, family status, or title.

To address the inequity, it is imperative that women engage with employers and leaders to both understand and develop skills around effective and appropriate compensation negotiation. Recognizing that compensation plans, especially those built on productivity models, may fail to place adequate value on gender-specific practice styles.

Jennifer Frank is a family physician, physician leader, wife, and mother in Northeast Wisconsin.

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

Elizabeth Ortiz, MD, knew she needed a change. Working at an academic county clinic, she was often worn down and pulled in different directions. “When I thought about what I really liked about my job, it was patient care and spending time with my patients, which I wasn’t able to do,” Dr. Ortiz said during the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

She’d heard of direct or concierge care but wasn’t sure if it was a good fit for her. COVID-19 offered a catalyst of sorts for a move to a new care model.

Ten weeks after she moved to Dallas, the pandemic hit full force. Seeing how telehealth was taking off, Dr. Ortiz began crafting a new model of care, a hybrid of telemedicine and house calls that offered multiple venues to connect with patients. The practice is just a year old, and “it’s working and it’s a constant experiment,” said Dr. Ortiz, who offers membership plans and prepaid appointments. She also does “a la carte” visits where established patients can see her at a one-off price. Her goal is to achieve 100% membership.

Although she operates through a direct pay and cash-only model, only recently has she become comfortable with the word “concierge.” There’s a preconceived notion of what that word means, she said.
 

Direct care: A definition

Following the trend of some primary care practices, more rheumatologists who are dissatisfied with the status quo are embracing these models of care.

Direct and concierge care are often mentioned in tandem, but there are nuanced differences. Direct specialty care removes third-party payers to protect the best interests of patients, according to Diana Girnita, MD, founder and CEO of Rheumatologist OnCall, a direct care practice. Her patient base hails from rural and urban areas in least 10 states. She also created a Facebook group for specialists in direct care and is the cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance.

Direct care offers a membership fee and additional fees for “as needed” services. “As the physician, I do not have to be contracted to an insurance company to see patients. I contract directly with patients. It is the patient’s choice to contract with an insurance and use the insurance for ancillary services and medication,” Dr. Girnita said. Patients with out-of-network benefits can claim the insurance to cover part of the consultation cost, she added.

In concierge or retainer medicine, a patient pays an annual or monthly fee or retainer to get access to the physician practice. In addition to this fee, the practice can bill the patient’s insurance for consultations or other services. “The concierge model does not eliminate the sub payer. You still contract with the patient’s insurance,” explained Dr. Girnita.

Physicians who establish these models sometimes do a hybrid of cash only and insurance. Micah Yu, MD, who practices rheumatology in Newport Beach, Calif., only takes Medicare. “Otherwise, patients are private pay. I am mainly fee for service, so patients are paying me for my time,” he said.

By tailoring their patient base and services, adopters find they have more time to spend with patients. “In my model, I spend 30 minutes for follow-up and 1 hour for new patients,” Dr. Yu said.
 

Limitations of traditional care

Carrying insurance doesn’t guarantee you the right care, Dr. Girnita said. Wait times to see a rheumatologist range from 4 to 6 months. For physicians who contract with insurance companies, reimbursement for services isn’t always paid promptly and decreases every year. A new cut in reimbursement is expected for rheumatology services in 2022.

Patients in direct care “pay a small amount for memberships that cover the cost of their visits and the time physicians spend in coordinating their additional care between the visits. The cost of the visits is always transparent,” Dr. Girnita said.

Irene Kazmers, MD, a solo private rheumatology practitioner in northern Michigan, was seeing 20-plus patients a day before she made the leap to a concierge model. “The paperwork and administrative burdens of practicing rheumatology as a solo [physician] have mushroomed in the last 10 years,” she said during the ACR meeting. She and staff were spending an inordinate amount of time on prior authorizations, step therapy requirements, electronic health record documentation, and other administrative burdens.

Reimbursements from payers have progressively declined as administrative challenges have necessitated more staff. “I was struggling to maintain an ample financial margin,” she said.
 

Improved communication, unlimited visits

Dr. Kazmers attests that the transition to the concierge model has enabled and fostered a higher level of communication and specialty care for her patients.

Patients who enroll in the practice pay an annual membership fee and get access to her personal cell phone number and email address. “If they need an urgent appointment, it is typically arranged the same or next day,” she said in an interview. “Visits are not as rushed as in the traditional model, conducive to incorporating beneficial integrative medicine modalities such as dietary, exercise, and mind-body approaches as appropriate, in addition to state-of-the-art treatment.”

She also has more time to coordinate care with her patients’ primary care providers and other care team professionals and to give patients feedback on lab and study results.

Dr. Girnita has ramped down from 28 to 15 patients a day. She’s able to spend 60 minutes for new patients and 30 minutes for follow-ups. Like Dr. Kazmers, she feels she has more time to address patient needs and listen to their concerns.

She’s kept her hospital affiliations but finds that she doesn’t have to go to the hospital as much as she used to. Direct care “reduces hospital visits because physicians significantly have much more time to spend with the patient and address the needs of the patient.” A patient with a gout flare, for example, may end up in the hospital under traditional care because there’s no room in the physician’s schedule to address the patient’s needs.

Dr. Girnita recalled when she assisted a patient who had developed inflammatory arthritis and was desperate to see a doctor. The patient had good insurance, but appointments in her area weren’t available for at least 6 months. “Her primary care physician called me. I saw her and provided her with the appropriate care. A couple of months later she is doing great.”
 

What insurance does and doesn’t cover

Many patients who seek out direct or concierge models retain their insurance. At least 90% of Dr. Girnita’s patients have insurance with high deductibles. The other 10% have other types of insurance or no insurance.

Ellen McKnight, MD, who has a hybrid rheumatology practice in Pensacola, Fla., still accepts commercial insurance, but has opted out of Medicare. Her patients mostly come from rural areas in Florida, and their insurance situations vary widely. “In my practice, I estimate that 65% have insurance and 35% do not. Most of my patients have commercial insurance, and a substantial portion, about 40%, are just paying cash. My cash pay patients have Medicare, HMOs, and others are uninsured,” she said in an interview.

Direct care practices may continue to bill traditional insurance for items like visits, injections, and ultrasound.

Dr. Girnita’s patients have the option of submitting a “superbill” or invoice to insurance companies for patients to be reimbursed by their insurance for the cost of the visit. It contains the CPT code for the visit along with the ICD-10 codes for diagnoses. “I use a company called Reimbursify to help patients submit their invoice to their insurance company,” Dr. Girnita said.

Dr. Ortiz takes a different approach, offering superbills for consults and individual appointments, but not for patients enrolled in her membership program.

Some in the payer industry contend that direct care arrangements increase costs and distort risk pools. If most direct care patients already have a comprehensive health insurance policy, it’s likely they’re being billed twice for services, said David Allen, spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans.

“Duplicative payments inflate the cost of care at a convenience to the providers and increase the cost of insurance premiums when insurers receive bills for those same services from providers. In other words, patients are being double billed,” Mr. Allen said.

These providers are assuming risk without state insurance oversight or regulations to ensure patient protections and safeguards are in place, he continued. “If utilization of services outpaces capacity, the provider may ultimately be unable to provide the amount of care expected by the patient because their practice agreed to unlimited visits and services with little or no restrictions.”
 

Eliminating ‘surprise’ bills

Adopters of direct care/concierge services counter that it’s the insurance and pharmaceutical companies driving up costs. Patients – especially those who have high-deductible plans – save money through these models. “In the direct care model, doctors have worked out advocacy for patients that are unsurpassed. Insurance companies don’t do that,” Dr. McKnight said.

Consumers know up front what the price is for other services. When you go to a restaurant, you always look on the menu to see what the price is for a bottle of wine or steak, Dr. Girnita said. “Only in the medical field you don’t know anything. And you’re shocked about the price you must pay.” Not many practices list their prices on their website, although federal rules seek to further increase price transparency in hospitals and among insurers.

Patients will sometimes get a “surprise” bill for their visit, laboratory, or imaging tests. According to Dr. Girnita, “that doesn’t happen in my practice. I discuss all prices with them before they get to the lab or MRI. I don’t charge copayments or anything extra.” Without a copayment – usually $50-$75 for specialist services – or a surprise bill, patients are always paying less, she said.

Costs through insurance are oftentimes higher, she continued. For routine lab work, a patient in a direct care practice pays about $30-$40. If they request this work through a lab, they’re likely to pay $150. “Think about an MRI. Through a direct care practice like mine, you pay $450-$700. In a hospital setting, you pay at least $5,000.”

Patients with high-deductible insurance plans often pay thousands of dollars before meeting their deductible, Dr. Girnita and others noted. A patient with this type of plan may pay $250 for a vitamin D lab if they haven’t met their deductible, Dr. McKnight explained. “With direct care, you’ll be paying $12.50.”

Dr. Girnita said her members get excellent discounts for labs and imaging. In the direct care models, physicians can help with this by contracting directly with labs, imaging centers, and independent pharmacies, giving patients access to affordable and transparent prices for their medical care.
 

What patients pay for services

In direct and concierge care membership models, coverage for services and fees vary widely from practice to practice.

Dr. Girnita offers several membership options. One package, which is $199 a month, is for patients with stable symptoms that guarantee continuity of care. It includes four visits a year and immediate access to the practice in case of emergency (including two additional urgent visits). “This works for a lot of patients. They consider that affordable, and they have all the benefits of a concierge practice. They can have direct communication with me, and they have guaranteed continuity of care,” Dr. Girnita said.

The other model, which is $299 per month, is for patients who need monthly contact with the rheumatologist for visits, telephone and email communications, urgent appointments, integrative medicine consultations, and many other benefits. For 1-hour consultations, Dr. Girnita charges $399.

Dr. Ortiz, who offers a direct pay model, charges $899 for an initial consult, which covers 3.5 hours of her time. “We do an hour of telemedicine, and we do a house call, which is 1.5-2 hours.” She follows up with a telehealth visit. Labs and x-rays are not included and go through the patient’s insurance.

Once the consult takes place, she assesses what a patient needs and offers them either a 6- or 12-month membership, which includes unlimited visits.

Patients can also buy a prepaid, six-appointment package with a 12% discount. Dr. Ortiz prices her telehealth visits at $350 and house calls at $550.

Dr. McKnight’s cash-only model for established patients offers four visits a year, reducing the fee for each visit. For example, a patient will pay $95 for the first visit, then $90, $85, and $80 for subsequent visits.

Accessing medications through direct care

One challenge with this model is finding affordable medications for patients outside of insurance.

Insurance dictates what’s covered, leaving fewer options for patients, Dr. McKnight said. “You have to jump through hoops, and there’s prior authorizations.” For a condition like severe osteoporosis, treatment should start sequentially with the true bone builders first, then move on to a medication like alendronate (Fosamax).

“Insurers will make you go to Fosamax first and then fail it,” she said. This results in the patient potentially developing worsening bone loss or possibly even sustaining a fracture.

Prior authorization requirements demand excessive staff time and effort, Dr. Kazmers said. This can translate to more than $90,000 a year in human resource costs for rheumatologists, who often deal with many specialty drug authorizations. “Every practice needs to hire staff to handle prior authorizations. We receive no compensation for this from the pharmaceutical companies and middlemen who ultimately profit from this cumbersome process,” she added.

Among the two big classes for rheumatology patients, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the most widely available. Pharmacies can offer DMARDs for cash, although some are limited in terms of where they can ship, Dr. Girnita said.

The other class, biologic DMARDs, are the most expensive medications rheumatologists use for conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis.

With biologics, it’s more difficult, as they’re very expensive, typically $6,000 a month or more, sources told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, we can’t partner at this time with pharmaceutical companies that produce biologics or independent pharmacies,” Dr. Girnita said. Physicians can’t control biologic prices either. “Insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers have the control on these prices.”

Physicians can direct patients to multiple resources where they can find assistance.

Biologics companies that offer patient assistance programs can sometimes offer medications for free, while others offer savings cards or copay cards, “which helps a lot,” Dr. Girnita said. She assists her patients by filing some of the paperwork necessary to qualify for these programs, and the patients submit the rest.

“For these companies to help the patient, they need the patient’s financial information,” she said. “But I do most of that work; I complete the forms and send to the company and justify need for the medication.”
 

What’s ahead for direct specialty care

While some patients have benefited, others have had to seek alternatives as their doctors transition to alternative models.

Not everyone can afford the concierge retainer fee, said Dr. Kazmers, who practices in a rural area of Michigan, where rheumatologists are scarce. Enrollment in her concierge practice filled months before the switchover from her traditional practice took place. There are 70 patients on a waiting list.

Patients who elect not to enroll in the concierge practice need to find another source of rheumatology care. This is a downside to the practice transition, she acknowledged. “The closest rheumatologist taking new patients is a 3- to 4-hour drive away, which simply reflects the shortage of medical school graduates choosing to go into rheumatology in the United States,” Dr. Kazmers added.

One physician caring for thousands of chronically ill, complicated patients within systems that don’t allow them the time to really care for their patients threatens to make the access problem worse, Dr. Ortiz said. The direct care/concierge model offers an alternative for the provider “and is a way to keep providers in the workforce, who may otherwise consider leaving.”

Direct care/concierge medicine isn’t for all doctors. But for Dr. Kazmers, it’s the best option for her at this point in her career. “I’ve been practicing for 45 years in various models, including academic positions and private practice employment. I have worked for years in settings accepting Medicaid. I understand that if every rheumatologist went concierge tomorrow, this would constrict access to needed specialty care. But in my case, it provided a viable alternative to closing the practice’s doors altogether.”

Ultimately, the U.S. medical system needs more rheumatologists and other specialists. “If you really want to increase the service, then Medicare or other sources should support opening more residency and fellowship spots for medical graduates to pursue,” Dr. Girnita said.

Other solutions call for more systemic and institutional changes, such as expanding rheumatology divisions and faculties at institutions that train fellows and addressing medical school debt, Dr. Ortiz said.

Some practices see themselves branching out from individual patient care and partnering with local businesses to provide care for employees. That’s the future for direct specialty care, said Dr. Girnita, who’s been in discussions with a few employers to make such arrangements.

The direct primary care community has already started to contract with employers. “Their employees get care they need for just a fraction of the cost. These discussions are arising more and more,” she said.

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

Elizabeth Ortiz, MD, knew she needed a change. Working at an academic county clinic, she was often worn down and pulled in different directions. “When I thought about what I really liked about my job, it was patient care and spending time with my patients, which I wasn’t able to do,” Dr. Ortiz said during the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

She’d heard of direct or concierge care but wasn’t sure if it was a good fit for her. COVID-19 offered a catalyst of sorts for a move to a new care model.

Ten weeks after she moved to Dallas, the pandemic hit full force. Seeing how telehealth was taking off, Dr. Ortiz began crafting a new model of care, a hybrid of telemedicine and house calls that offered multiple venues to connect with patients. The practice is just a year old, and “it’s working and it’s a constant experiment,” said Dr. Ortiz, who offers membership plans and prepaid appointments. She also does “a la carte” visits where established patients can see her at a one-off price. Her goal is to achieve 100% membership.

Although she operates through a direct pay and cash-only model, only recently has she become comfortable with the word “concierge.” There’s a preconceived notion of what that word means, she said.
 

Direct care: A definition

Following the trend of some primary care practices, more rheumatologists who are dissatisfied with the status quo are embracing these models of care.

Direct and concierge care are often mentioned in tandem, but there are nuanced differences. Direct specialty care removes third-party payers to protect the best interests of patients, according to Diana Girnita, MD, founder and CEO of Rheumatologist OnCall, a direct care practice. Her patient base hails from rural and urban areas in least 10 states. She also created a Facebook group for specialists in direct care and is the cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance.

Direct care offers a membership fee and additional fees for “as needed” services. “As the physician, I do not have to be contracted to an insurance company to see patients. I contract directly with patients. It is the patient’s choice to contract with an insurance and use the insurance for ancillary services and medication,” Dr. Girnita said. Patients with out-of-network benefits can claim the insurance to cover part of the consultation cost, she added.

In concierge or retainer medicine, a patient pays an annual or monthly fee or retainer to get access to the physician practice. In addition to this fee, the practice can bill the patient’s insurance for consultations or other services. “The concierge model does not eliminate the sub payer. You still contract with the patient’s insurance,” explained Dr. Girnita.

Physicians who establish these models sometimes do a hybrid of cash only and insurance. Micah Yu, MD, who practices rheumatology in Newport Beach, Calif., only takes Medicare. “Otherwise, patients are private pay. I am mainly fee for service, so patients are paying me for my time,” he said.

By tailoring their patient base and services, adopters find they have more time to spend with patients. “In my model, I spend 30 minutes for follow-up and 1 hour for new patients,” Dr. Yu said.
 

Limitations of traditional care

Carrying insurance doesn’t guarantee you the right care, Dr. Girnita said. Wait times to see a rheumatologist range from 4 to 6 months. For physicians who contract with insurance companies, reimbursement for services isn’t always paid promptly and decreases every year. A new cut in reimbursement is expected for rheumatology services in 2022.

Patients in direct care “pay a small amount for memberships that cover the cost of their visits and the time physicians spend in coordinating their additional care between the visits. The cost of the visits is always transparent,” Dr. Girnita said.

Irene Kazmers, MD, a solo private rheumatology practitioner in northern Michigan, was seeing 20-plus patients a day before she made the leap to a concierge model. “The paperwork and administrative burdens of practicing rheumatology as a solo [physician] have mushroomed in the last 10 years,” she said during the ACR meeting. She and staff were spending an inordinate amount of time on prior authorizations, step therapy requirements, electronic health record documentation, and other administrative burdens.

Reimbursements from payers have progressively declined as administrative challenges have necessitated more staff. “I was struggling to maintain an ample financial margin,” she said.
 

Improved communication, unlimited visits

Dr. Kazmers attests that the transition to the concierge model has enabled and fostered a higher level of communication and specialty care for her patients.

Patients who enroll in the practice pay an annual membership fee and get access to her personal cell phone number and email address. “If they need an urgent appointment, it is typically arranged the same or next day,” she said in an interview. “Visits are not as rushed as in the traditional model, conducive to incorporating beneficial integrative medicine modalities such as dietary, exercise, and mind-body approaches as appropriate, in addition to state-of-the-art treatment.”

She also has more time to coordinate care with her patients’ primary care providers and other care team professionals and to give patients feedback on lab and study results.

Dr. Girnita has ramped down from 28 to 15 patients a day. She’s able to spend 60 minutes for new patients and 30 minutes for follow-ups. Like Dr. Kazmers, she feels she has more time to address patient needs and listen to their concerns.

She’s kept her hospital affiliations but finds that she doesn’t have to go to the hospital as much as she used to. Direct care “reduces hospital visits because physicians significantly have much more time to spend with the patient and address the needs of the patient.” A patient with a gout flare, for example, may end up in the hospital under traditional care because there’s no room in the physician’s schedule to address the patient’s needs.

Dr. Girnita recalled when she assisted a patient who had developed inflammatory arthritis and was desperate to see a doctor. The patient had good insurance, but appointments in her area weren’t available for at least 6 months. “Her primary care physician called me. I saw her and provided her with the appropriate care. A couple of months later she is doing great.”
 

What insurance does and doesn’t cover

Many patients who seek out direct or concierge models retain their insurance. At least 90% of Dr. Girnita’s patients have insurance with high deductibles. The other 10% have other types of insurance or no insurance.

Ellen McKnight, MD, who has a hybrid rheumatology practice in Pensacola, Fla., still accepts commercial insurance, but has opted out of Medicare. Her patients mostly come from rural areas in Florida, and their insurance situations vary widely. “In my practice, I estimate that 65% have insurance and 35% do not. Most of my patients have commercial insurance, and a substantial portion, about 40%, are just paying cash. My cash pay patients have Medicare, HMOs, and others are uninsured,” she said in an interview.

Direct care practices may continue to bill traditional insurance for items like visits, injections, and ultrasound.

Dr. Girnita’s patients have the option of submitting a “superbill” or invoice to insurance companies for patients to be reimbursed by their insurance for the cost of the visit. It contains the CPT code for the visit along with the ICD-10 codes for diagnoses. “I use a company called Reimbursify to help patients submit their invoice to their insurance company,” Dr. Girnita said.

Dr. Ortiz takes a different approach, offering superbills for consults and individual appointments, but not for patients enrolled in her membership program.

Some in the payer industry contend that direct care arrangements increase costs and distort risk pools. If most direct care patients already have a comprehensive health insurance policy, it’s likely they’re being billed twice for services, said David Allen, spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans.

“Duplicative payments inflate the cost of care at a convenience to the providers and increase the cost of insurance premiums when insurers receive bills for those same services from providers. In other words, patients are being double billed,” Mr. Allen said.

These providers are assuming risk without state insurance oversight or regulations to ensure patient protections and safeguards are in place, he continued. “If utilization of services outpaces capacity, the provider may ultimately be unable to provide the amount of care expected by the patient because their practice agreed to unlimited visits and services with little or no restrictions.”
 

Eliminating ‘surprise’ bills

Adopters of direct care/concierge services counter that it’s the insurance and pharmaceutical companies driving up costs. Patients – especially those who have high-deductible plans – save money through these models. “In the direct care model, doctors have worked out advocacy for patients that are unsurpassed. Insurance companies don’t do that,” Dr. McKnight said.

Consumers know up front what the price is for other services. When you go to a restaurant, you always look on the menu to see what the price is for a bottle of wine or steak, Dr. Girnita said. “Only in the medical field you don’t know anything. And you’re shocked about the price you must pay.” Not many practices list their prices on their website, although federal rules seek to further increase price transparency in hospitals and among insurers.

Patients will sometimes get a “surprise” bill for their visit, laboratory, or imaging tests. According to Dr. Girnita, “that doesn’t happen in my practice. I discuss all prices with them before they get to the lab or MRI. I don’t charge copayments or anything extra.” Without a copayment – usually $50-$75 for specialist services – or a surprise bill, patients are always paying less, she said.

Costs through insurance are oftentimes higher, she continued. For routine lab work, a patient in a direct care practice pays about $30-$40. If they request this work through a lab, they’re likely to pay $150. “Think about an MRI. Through a direct care practice like mine, you pay $450-$700. In a hospital setting, you pay at least $5,000.”

Patients with high-deductible insurance plans often pay thousands of dollars before meeting their deductible, Dr. Girnita and others noted. A patient with this type of plan may pay $250 for a vitamin D lab if they haven’t met their deductible, Dr. McKnight explained. “With direct care, you’ll be paying $12.50.”

Dr. Girnita said her members get excellent discounts for labs and imaging. In the direct care models, physicians can help with this by contracting directly with labs, imaging centers, and independent pharmacies, giving patients access to affordable and transparent prices for their medical care.
 

What patients pay for services

In direct and concierge care membership models, coverage for services and fees vary widely from practice to practice.

Dr. Girnita offers several membership options. One package, which is $199 a month, is for patients with stable symptoms that guarantee continuity of care. It includes four visits a year and immediate access to the practice in case of emergency (including two additional urgent visits). “This works for a lot of patients. They consider that affordable, and they have all the benefits of a concierge practice. They can have direct communication with me, and they have guaranteed continuity of care,” Dr. Girnita said.

The other model, which is $299 per month, is for patients who need monthly contact with the rheumatologist for visits, telephone and email communications, urgent appointments, integrative medicine consultations, and many other benefits. For 1-hour consultations, Dr. Girnita charges $399.

Dr. Ortiz, who offers a direct pay model, charges $899 for an initial consult, which covers 3.5 hours of her time. “We do an hour of telemedicine, and we do a house call, which is 1.5-2 hours.” She follows up with a telehealth visit. Labs and x-rays are not included and go through the patient’s insurance.

Once the consult takes place, she assesses what a patient needs and offers them either a 6- or 12-month membership, which includes unlimited visits.

Patients can also buy a prepaid, six-appointment package with a 12% discount. Dr. Ortiz prices her telehealth visits at $350 and house calls at $550.

Dr. McKnight’s cash-only model for established patients offers four visits a year, reducing the fee for each visit. For example, a patient will pay $95 for the first visit, then $90, $85, and $80 for subsequent visits.

Accessing medications through direct care

One challenge with this model is finding affordable medications for patients outside of insurance.

Insurance dictates what’s covered, leaving fewer options for patients, Dr. McKnight said. “You have to jump through hoops, and there’s prior authorizations.” For a condition like severe osteoporosis, treatment should start sequentially with the true bone builders first, then move on to a medication like alendronate (Fosamax).

“Insurers will make you go to Fosamax first and then fail it,” she said. This results in the patient potentially developing worsening bone loss or possibly even sustaining a fracture.

Prior authorization requirements demand excessive staff time and effort, Dr. Kazmers said. This can translate to more than $90,000 a year in human resource costs for rheumatologists, who often deal with many specialty drug authorizations. “Every practice needs to hire staff to handle prior authorizations. We receive no compensation for this from the pharmaceutical companies and middlemen who ultimately profit from this cumbersome process,” she added.

Among the two big classes for rheumatology patients, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the most widely available. Pharmacies can offer DMARDs for cash, although some are limited in terms of where they can ship, Dr. Girnita said.

The other class, biologic DMARDs, are the most expensive medications rheumatologists use for conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis.

With biologics, it’s more difficult, as they’re very expensive, typically $6,000 a month or more, sources told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, we can’t partner at this time with pharmaceutical companies that produce biologics or independent pharmacies,” Dr. Girnita said. Physicians can’t control biologic prices either. “Insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers have the control on these prices.”

Physicians can direct patients to multiple resources where they can find assistance.

Biologics companies that offer patient assistance programs can sometimes offer medications for free, while others offer savings cards or copay cards, “which helps a lot,” Dr. Girnita said. She assists her patients by filing some of the paperwork necessary to qualify for these programs, and the patients submit the rest.

“For these companies to help the patient, they need the patient’s financial information,” she said. “But I do most of that work; I complete the forms and send to the company and justify need for the medication.”
 

What’s ahead for direct specialty care

While some patients have benefited, others have had to seek alternatives as their doctors transition to alternative models.

Not everyone can afford the concierge retainer fee, said Dr. Kazmers, who practices in a rural area of Michigan, where rheumatologists are scarce. Enrollment in her concierge practice filled months before the switchover from her traditional practice took place. There are 70 patients on a waiting list.

Patients who elect not to enroll in the concierge practice need to find another source of rheumatology care. This is a downside to the practice transition, she acknowledged. “The closest rheumatologist taking new patients is a 3- to 4-hour drive away, which simply reflects the shortage of medical school graduates choosing to go into rheumatology in the United States,” Dr. Kazmers added.

One physician caring for thousands of chronically ill, complicated patients within systems that don’t allow them the time to really care for their patients threatens to make the access problem worse, Dr. Ortiz said. The direct care/concierge model offers an alternative for the provider “and is a way to keep providers in the workforce, who may otherwise consider leaving.”

Direct care/concierge medicine isn’t for all doctors. But for Dr. Kazmers, it’s the best option for her at this point in her career. “I’ve been practicing for 45 years in various models, including academic positions and private practice employment. I have worked for years in settings accepting Medicaid. I understand that if every rheumatologist went concierge tomorrow, this would constrict access to needed specialty care. But in my case, it provided a viable alternative to closing the practice’s doors altogether.”

Ultimately, the U.S. medical system needs more rheumatologists and other specialists. “If you really want to increase the service, then Medicare or other sources should support opening more residency and fellowship spots for medical graduates to pursue,” Dr. Girnita said.

Other solutions call for more systemic and institutional changes, such as expanding rheumatology divisions and faculties at institutions that train fellows and addressing medical school debt, Dr. Ortiz said.

Some practices see themselves branching out from individual patient care and partnering with local businesses to provide care for employees. That’s the future for direct specialty care, said Dr. Girnita, who’s been in discussions with a few employers to make such arrangements.

The direct primary care community has already started to contract with employers. “Their employees get care they need for just a fraction of the cost. These discussions are arising more and more,” she said.

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

Elizabeth Ortiz, MD, knew she needed a change. Working at an academic county clinic, she was often worn down and pulled in different directions. “When I thought about what I really liked about my job, it was patient care and spending time with my patients, which I wasn’t able to do,” Dr. Ortiz said during the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

She’d heard of direct or concierge care but wasn’t sure if it was a good fit for her. COVID-19 offered a catalyst of sorts for a move to a new care model.

Ten weeks after she moved to Dallas, the pandemic hit full force. Seeing how telehealth was taking off, Dr. Ortiz began crafting a new model of care, a hybrid of telemedicine and house calls that offered multiple venues to connect with patients. The practice is just a year old, and “it’s working and it’s a constant experiment,” said Dr. Ortiz, who offers membership plans and prepaid appointments. She also does “a la carte” visits where established patients can see her at a one-off price. Her goal is to achieve 100% membership.

Although she operates through a direct pay and cash-only model, only recently has she become comfortable with the word “concierge.” There’s a preconceived notion of what that word means, she said.
 

Direct care: A definition

Following the trend of some primary care practices, more rheumatologists who are dissatisfied with the status quo are embracing these models of care.

Direct and concierge care are often mentioned in tandem, but there are nuanced differences. Direct specialty care removes third-party payers to protect the best interests of patients, according to Diana Girnita, MD, founder and CEO of Rheumatologist OnCall, a direct care practice. Her patient base hails from rural and urban areas in least 10 states. She also created a Facebook group for specialists in direct care and is the cofounder of the Direct Specialty Care Alliance.

Direct care offers a membership fee and additional fees for “as needed” services. “As the physician, I do not have to be contracted to an insurance company to see patients. I contract directly with patients. It is the patient’s choice to contract with an insurance and use the insurance for ancillary services and medication,” Dr. Girnita said. Patients with out-of-network benefits can claim the insurance to cover part of the consultation cost, she added.

In concierge or retainer medicine, a patient pays an annual or monthly fee or retainer to get access to the physician practice. In addition to this fee, the practice can bill the patient’s insurance for consultations or other services. “The concierge model does not eliminate the sub payer. You still contract with the patient’s insurance,” explained Dr. Girnita.

Physicians who establish these models sometimes do a hybrid of cash only and insurance. Micah Yu, MD, who practices rheumatology in Newport Beach, Calif., only takes Medicare. “Otherwise, patients are private pay. I am mainly fee for service, so patients are paying me for my time,” he said.

By tailoring their patient base and services, adopters find they have more time to spend with patients. “In my model, I spend 30 minutes for follow-up and 1 hour for new patients,” Dr. Yu said.
 

Limitations of traditional care

Carrying insurance doesn’t guarantee you the right care, Dr. Girnita said. Wait times to see a rheumatologist range from 4 to 6 months. For physicians who contract with insurance companies, reimbursement for services isn’t always paid promptly and decreases every year. A new cut in reimbursement is expected for rheumatology services in 2022.

Patients in direct care “pay a small amount for memberships that cover the cost of their visits and the time physicians spend in coordinating their additional care between the visits. The cost of the visits is always transparent,” Dr. Girnita said.

Irene Kazmers, MD, a solo private rheumatology practitioner in northern Michigan, was seeing 20-plus patients a day before she made the leap to a concierge model. “The paperwork and administrative burdens of practicing rheumatology as a solo [physician] have mushroomed in the last 10 years,” she said during the ACR meeting. She and staff were spending an inordinate amount of time on prior authorizations, step therapy requirements, electronic health record documentation, and other administrative burdens.

Reimbursements from payers have progressively declined as administrative challenges have necessitated more staff. “I was struggling to maintain an ample financial margin,” she said.
 

Improved communication, unlimited visits

Dr. Kazmers attests that the transition to the concierge model has enabled and fostered a higher level of communication and specialty care for her patients.

Patients who enroll in the practice pay an annual membership fee and get access to her personal cell phone number and email address. “If they need an urgent appointment, it is typically arranged the same or next day,” she said in an interview. “Visits are not as rushed as in the traditional model, conducive to incorporating beneficial integrative medicine modalities such as dietary, exercise, and mind-body approaches as appropriate, in addition to state-of-the-art treatment.”

She also has more time to coordinate care with her patients’ primary care providers and other care team professionals and to give patients feedback on lab and study results.

Dr. Girnita has ramped down from 28 to 15 patients a day. She’s able to spend 60 minutes for new patients and 30 minutes for follow-ups. Like Dr. Kazmers, she feels she has more time to address patient needs and listen to their concerns.

She’s kept her hospital affiliations but finds that she doesn’t have to go to the hospital as much as she used to. Direct care “reduces hospital visits because physicians significantly have much more time to spend with the patient and address the needs of the patient.” A patient with a gout flare, for example, may end up in the hospital under traditional care because there’s no room in the physician’s schedule to address the patient’s needs.

Dr. Girnita recalled when she assisted a patient who had developed inflammatory arthritis and was desperate to see a doctor. The patient had good insurance, but appointments in her area weren’t available for at least 6 months. “Her primary care physician called me. I saw her and provided her with the appropriate care. A couple of months later she is doing great.”
 

What insurance does and doesn’t cover

Many patients who seek out direct or concierge models retain their insurance. At least 90% of Dr. Girnita’s patients have insurance with high deductibles. The other 10% have other types of insurance or no insurance.

Ellen McKnight, MD, who has a hybrid rheumatology practice in Pensacola, Fla., still accepts commercial insurance, but has opted out of Medicare. Her patients mostly come from rural areas in Florida, and their insurance situations vary widely. “In my practice, I estimate that 65% have insurance and 35% do not. Most of my patients have commercial insurance, and a substantial portion, about 40%, are just paying cash. My cash pay patients have Medicare, HMOs, and others are uninsured,” she said in an interview.

Direct care practices may continue to bill traditional insurance for items like visits, injections, and ultrasound.

Dr. Girnita’s patients have the option of submitting a “superbill” or invoice to insurance companies for patients to be reimbursed by their insurance for the cost of the visit. It contains the CPT code for the visit along with the ICD-10 codes for diagnoses. “I use a company called Reimbursify to help patients submit their invoice to their insurance company,” Dr. Girnita said.

Dr. Ortiz takes a different approach, offering superbills for consults and individual appointments, but not for patients enrolled in her membership program.

Some in the payer industry contend that direct care arrangements increase costs and distort risk pools. If most direct care patients already have a comprehensive health insurance policy, it’s likely they’re being billed twice for services, said David Allen, spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans.

“Duplicative payments inflate the cost of care at a convenience to the providers and increase the cost of insurance premiums when insurers receive bills for those same services from providers. In other words, patients are being double billed,” Mr. Allen said.

These providers are assuming risk without state insurance oversight or regulations to ensure patient protections and safeguards are in place, he continued. “If utilization of services outpaces capacity, the provider may ultimately be unable to provide the amount of care expected by the patient because their practice agreed to unlimited visits and services with little or no restrictions.”
 

Eliminating ‘surprise’ bills

Adopters of direct care/concierge services counter that it’s the insurance and pharmaceutical companies driving up costs. Patients – especially those who have high-deductible plans – save money through these models. “In the direct care model, doctors have worked out advocacy for patients that are unsurpassed. Insurance companies don’t do that,” Dr. McKnight said.

Consumers know up front what the price is for other services. When you go to a restaurant, you always look on the menu to see what the price is for a bottle of wine or steak, Dr. Girnita said. “Only in the medical field you don’t know anything. And you’re shocked about the price you must pay.” Not many practices list their prices on their website, although federal rules seek to further increase price transparency in hospitals and among insurers.

Patients will sometimes get a “surprise” bill for their visit, laboratory, or imaging tests. According to Dr. Girnita, “that doesn’t happen in my practice. I discuss all prices with them before they get to the lab or MRI. I don’t charge copayments or anything extra.” Without a copayment – usually $50-$75 for specialist services – or a surprise bill, patients are always paying less, she said.

Costs through insurance are oftentimes higher, she continued. For routine lab work, a patient in a direct care practice pays about $30-$40. If they request this work through a lab, they’re likely to pay $150. “Think about an MRI. Through a direct care practice like mine, you pay $450-$700. In a hospital setting, you pay at least $5,000.”

Patients with high-deductible insurance plans often pay thousands of dollars before meeting their deductible, Dr. Girnita and others noted. A patient with this type of plan may pay $250 for a vitamin D lab if they haven’t met their deductible, Dr. McKnight explained. “With direct care, you’ll be paying $12.50.”

Dr. Girnita said her members get excellent discounts for labs and imaging. In the direct care models, physicians can help with this by contracting directly with labs, imaging centers, and independent pharmacies, giving patients access to affordable and transparent prices for their medical care.
 

What patients pay for services

In direct and concierge care membership models, coverage for services and fees vary widely from practice to practice.

Dr. Girnita offers several membership options. One package, which is $199 a month, is for patients with stable symptoms that guarantee continuity of care. It includes four visits a year and immediate access to the practice in case of emergency (including two additional urgent visits). “This works for a lot of patients. They consider that affordable, and they have all the benefits of a concierge practice. They can have direct communication with me, and they have guaranteed continuity of care,” Dr. Girnita said.

The other model, which is $299 per month, is for patients who need monthly contact with the rheumatologist for visits, telephone and email communications, urgent appointments, integrative medicine consultations, and many other benefits. For 1-hour consultations, Dr. Girnita charges $399.

Dr. Ortiz, who offers a direct pay model, charges $899 for an initial consult, which covers 3.5 hours of her time. “We do an hour of telemedicine, and we do a house call, which is 1.5-2 hours.” She follows up with a telehealth visit. Labs and x-rays are not included and go through the patient’s insurance.

Once the consult takes place, she assesses what a patient needs and offers them either a 6- or 12-month membership, which includes unlimited visits.

Patients can also buy a prepaid, six-appointment package with a 12% discount. Dr. Ortiz prices her telehealth visits at $350 and house calls at $550.

Dr. McKnight’s cash-only model for established patients offers four visits a year, reducing the fee for each visit. For example, a patient will pay $95 for the first visit, then $90, $85, and $80 for subsequent visits.

Accessing medications through direct care

One challenge with this model is finding affordable medications for patients outside of insurance.

Insurance dictates what’s covered, leaving fewer options for patients, Dr. McKnight said. “You have to jump through hoops, and there’s prior authorizations.” For a condition like severe osteoporosis, treatment should start sequentially with the true bone builders first, then move on to a medication like alendronate (Fosamax).

“Insurers will make you go to Fosamax first and then fail it,” she said. This results in the patient potentially developing worsening bone loss or possibly even sustaining a fracture.

Prior authorization requirements demand excessive staff time and effort, Dr. Kazmers said. This can translate to more than $90,000 a year in human resource costs for rheumatologists, who often deal with many specialty drug authorizations. “Every practice needs to hire staff to handle prior authorizations. We receive no compensation for this from the pharmaceutical companies and middlemen who ultimately profit from this cumbersome process,” she added.

Among the two big classes for rheumatology patients, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the most widely available. Pharmacies can offer DMARDs for cash, although some are limited in terms of where they can ship, Dr. Girnita said.

The other class, biologic DMARDs, are the most expensive medications rheumatologists use for conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis.

With biologics, it’s more difficult, as they’re very expensive, typically $6,000 a month or more, sources told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, we can’t partner at this time with pharmaceutical companies that produce biologics or independent pharmacies,” Dr. Girnita said. Physicians can’t control biologic prices either. “Insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers have the control on these prices.”

Physicians can direct patients to multiple resources where they can find assistance.

Biologics companies that offer patient assistance programs can sometimes offer medications for free, while others offer savings cards or copay cards, “which helps a lot,” Dr. Girnita said. She assists her patients by filing some of the paperwork necessary to qualify for these programs, and the patients submit the rest.

“For these companies to help the patient, they need the patient’s financial information,” she said. “But I do most of that work; I complete the forms and send to the company and justify need for the medication.”
 

What’s ahead for direct specialty care

While some patients have benefited, others have had to seek alternatives as their doctors transition to alternative models.

Not everyone can afford the concierge retainer fee, said Dr. Kazmers, who practices in a rural area of Michigan, where rheumatologists are scarce. Enrollment in her concierge practice filled months before the switchover from her traditional practice took place. There are 70 patients on a waiting list.

Patients who elect not to enroll in the concierge practice need to find another source of rheumatology care. This is a downside to the practice transition, she acknowledged. “The closest rheumatologist taking new patients is a 3- to 4-hour drive away, which simply reflects the shortage of medical school graduates choosing to go into rheumatology in the United States,” Dr. Kazmers added.

One physician caring for thousands of chronically ill, complicated patients within systems that don’t allow them the time to really care for their patients threatens to make the access problem worse, Dr. Ortiz said. The direct care/concierge model offers an alternative for the provider “and is a way to keep providers in the workforce, who may otherwise consider leaving.”

Direct care/concierge medicine isn’t for all doctors. But for Dr. Kazmers, it’s the best option for her at this point in her career. “I’ve been practicing for 45 years in various models, including academic positions and private practice employment. I have worked for years in settings accepting Medicaid. I understand that if every rheumatologist went concierge tomorrow, this would constrict access to needed specialty care. But in my case, it provided a viable alternative to closing the practice’s doors altogether.”

Ultimately, the U.S. medical system needs more rheumatologists and other specialists. “If you really want to increase the service, then Medicare or other sources should support opening more residency and fellowship spots for medical graduates to pursue,” Dr. Girnita said.

Other solutions call for more systemic and institutional changes, such as expanding rheumatology divisions and faculties at institutions that train fellows and addressing medical school debt, Dr. Ortiz said.

Some practices see themselves branching out from individual patient care and partnering with local businesses to provide care for employees. That’s the future for direct specialty care, said Dr. Girnita, who’s been in discussions with a few employers to make such arrangements.

The direct primary care community has already started to contract with employers. “Their employees get care they need for just a fraction of the cost. These discussions are arising more and more,” she said.

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

Bruce “BJ” Miller Jr., a 19-year-old Princeton (N.J.) University sophomore, was horsing around with friends near a train track in 1990 when they spotted a parked commuter train. They decided to climb over the train, and Mr. Miller was first up the ladder.

Courtesy BJ Miller

Waking up to a new body

Mr. Miller doesn’t remember much about the accident, but he recalls waking up a few days later in the ICU and feeling the need to use the bathroom. Disoriented, Mr. Miller pulled off his ventilator, climbed out of bed, and tried to walk forward, unaware of his injuries. His feet and legs had not yet been amputated. When the catheter line ran out of slack, he collapsed.

“Eventually, a nurse came rushing in, responding to the ventilator alarm bells going off,” Mr. Miller said. “My dad wasn’t far behind. It became clear to me then that this was not a dream and [I realized] what had happened and why I was in the hospital.” 

For months, Mr. Miller lived in the burn unit, undergoing countless skin grafts and surgeries. Because viable and nonviable tissue take time to be revealed after burns, surgeons take the minimum amount of tissue during each operation to give damaged tissue a chance to heal, he explained. In Mr. Miller’s case, his feet were amputated first, and later, his legs.

“In those early days from the hospital bed, my mind turned to issues related to identity,” he said. “What do I do with myself? What is the meaning of my life now? I was challenged in those ways. I had to think through who I was, and who I wanted to become.”

Mr. Miller eventually moved to the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (now called The Shirley Ryan AbilityLab), where he started the grueling process of rebuilding his strength and learning to walk on prosthetic legs.

“Any one day was filled with a mix of optimism and good fight and 5 minutes later, exasperation, frustration, tons of pain, and insecurity about my body,” he said. “My family and friends held the gate for me in a way, but a lot of the work was up to me. I had to believe that I deserved this love, that I wanted to be alive, and that there was still something here for me.”

Courtesy BJ Miller

Mr. Miller didn’t have to look far for inspiration. His mom had lived with polio for most of her life and acquired post-polio syndrome as she grew older, he said. When he was a child, his mom walked with crutches, and she became wheelchair-dependent by the time he was a teenager. 

After the first surgery to amputate his feet, Mr. Miller and his mom shared a deep discussion about his joining the ranks of “the disabled,” and how their connection was now even stronger.

“In this way, the injuries unlocked even more experiences to share between us, and more love to feel, and therefore some early sense of gain to complement all the losses happening,” he said. “She had taught me so much about living with disability and had given me all the tools I needed to refashion my sense of self.”
 

From burn patient to medical student

After returning to Princeton University and finishing his undergraduate degree, Mr. Miller decided to go into medicine. He wanted to use his experience to help patients and find ways to improve weaknesses in the health care system, he said. But he made a deal with himself that he wouldn’t become a doctor for the sake of becoming one; he would enter the vocation only if he could do the work and enjoy the job.

“I wasn’t sure if I could do it,” he said. “There weren’t a lot of triple amputees to point to, to say whether this was even mechanically possible, to get through the training. The medical institutions I spoke with knew they had some obligation by law to protect me, but there’s also an obligation that I need to be able to fulfill the competencies. This was uncharted water.”

Because his greatest physical challenge was standing for long periods, instructors at the University of California, San Francisco, made accommodations to alleviate the strain. His clinical rotations for example, were organized near his home to limit the need for travel. On surgical rotations, he was allowed to sit on a stool.

Medical training progressed smoothly until Mr. Miller completed a rotation in his chosen specialty, rehabilitation medicine. He didn’t enjoy it. The passion and meaning he hoped to find was missing. Disillusioned, and with his final year in medical school coming to an end, Mr. Miller dropped out of the Match program. Around the same time, his sister, Lisa, died by suicide.

“My whole family life was in shambles,” he said. “I felt like, ‘I can’t even help my sister, how am I going to help other people?’ ”

Mr. Miller earned his MD and moved to his parents’ home in Milwaukee after his sister’s death. He was close to giving up on medicine, but his deans convinced him to do a post-doc internship. It was as an intern at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, that he completed an elective in palliative care. 

“I fell immediately in love with it the first day,” he said. “This was a field devoted to working with things you can’t change and dealing with a lack of control, what it’s like to live with these diagnoses. This was a place where I could dig into my experience and share that with patients and families. This was a place where my life story had something to offer.”
 

Creating a new form of palliative care

Dr. Miller went on to complete a fellowship at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in hospice and palliative medicine. He became a palliative care physician at UCSF Health, and later directed the Zen Hospice Project, a nonprofit dedicated to teaching mindfulness-based caregiving for professionals, family members, and caregivers.

Courtesy BJ Miller

Gayle Kojimoto, a program manager who worked with Dr. Miller at UCSF’s outpatient palliative care clinic for cancer patients, said Miller was a favorite among patients because of his authenticity and his ability to make them feel understood.

“Patients love him because he is 100% present with them,” said Ms. Kojimoto. “They feel like he can understand their suffering better than other docs. He’s open to hearing about their suffering, when others may not be, and he doesn’t judge them. Many patients have said that seeing him is better than seeing a therapist.”

In 2020, Dr. Miller cofounded Mettle Health, a first-of-its-kind company that aims to reframe the way people think about their well-being as it relates to chronic and serious illness. Mettle Health’s care team provides consultations on a range of topics, including practical, emotional, and existential issues. No physician referrals are needed.

When the pandemic started, Dr. Miller said he and his colleagues felt the moment was ripe for bringing palliative care online to increase access, while decreasing caregiver and clinician burnout.

“We set up Mettle Health as an online palliative care counseling and coaching business and we pulled it out of the healthcare system so that whether you’re a patient or a caregiver you don’t need to satisfy some insurance need to get this kind of care,” he said. “We also realized there are enough people writing prescriptions. The medical piece is relatively well tended to; it’s the psychosocial and spiritual issues, and the existential issues, that are so underdeveloped. We are a social service, not a medical service, and this allows us to complement existing structures of care rather than compete with them.”

Having Dr. Miller as a leader for Mettle Health is a huge driver for why people seek out the company, said Sonya Dolan, director of operations and cofounder of Mettle Health.

“His approach to working with patients, caregivers, and clinicians is something I think sets us apart and makes us special,” she said. “His way of thinking about serious illness and death and dying is incredibly unique and he has a way of talking about and humanizing something that’s scary for a lot of us.”
 

‘Surprised by how much I can still do’

Since the accident, Dr. Miller has come a long way in navigating his physical limitations. In the early years, Dr. Miller said he was determined to do as many activities as he still could. He skied, biked, and pushed himself to stand for long periods on his prosthetic legs.  

“For years, I would force myself to do these things just to prove I could, but not really enjoy them,” he said. “I’d get out on the dance floor or put myself out in vulnerable social situations where I might fall. It was kind of brutal and difficult. But at about year 5 or so, I became much more at ease with myself and more at peace with myself.”

Today, Dr. Miller’s prosthetics make nearly all ambulatory activities possible, but he concentrates on the activities that bring him joy.

“Probably the thing I can still do that surprises people most, including myself, is riding a motorcycle,” he said. “As for my upper body, I’m thoroughly used to living with only one hand and I continue to be surprised at how much I can still do. With enough time and experimentation, I can usually find a way to do what I need/want to do. It took me awhile to figure out how to clap! Now I just pound my chest for the same effect!”

Dr. Miller is an animal-lover and said his pets and nature are a large part of his self-care. His dog Maysie travels nearly everywhere with him and his cats, the Muffin Man and Darkness, enjoy making guest appearances on his Zoom calls. The physician frequently visits the desert in southern Utah and said he loves the arts, architecture, and design.

Dr. Miller’s advice for others who are disabled and want to go into medicine? Live out loud with your truths and be open about your disabilities. Too often, disabled individuals hide their disabilities, lie about them, or shield the world from their story, he said. 

“These are rich, ripe experiences that are incredibly valuable to someone who wants to go out and be of service in the world,” he said. “We should be proud of our experiences as disabled people. The creativity we’ve had to exercise, the workarounds we’ve had to employ, these should not be points of embarrassment, but points of pride. Anyone who wants to pursue clinical training of any kind should use these experiences explicitly. These are sources of strength, not something to be forgiven or tolerated or accommodated.” 

The same goes for physicians who do not have disabilities but who have lived through hardship, pain, struggle, or adversity, he emphasized.

“Find a way to learn from them, find a way to own them,” he said. “Use them as a source of strength and the rest of the world will respond to you differently.”

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

Bruce “BJ” Miller Jr., a 19-year-old Princeton (N.J.) University sophomore, was horsing around with friends near a train track in 1990 when they spotted a parked commuter train. They decided to climb over the train, and Mr. Miller was first up the ladder.

Courtesy BJ Miller

Waking up to a new body

Mr. Miller doesn’t remember much about the accident, but he recalls waking up a few days later in the ICU and feeling the need to use the bathroom. Disoriented, Mr. Miller pulled off his ventilator, climbed out of bed, and tried to walk forward, unaware of his injuries. His feet and legs had not yet been amputated. When the catheter line ran out of slack, he collapsed.

“Eventually, a nurse came rushing in, responding to the ventilator alarm bells going off,” Mr. Miller said. “My dad wasn’t far behind. It became clear to me then that this was not a dream and [I realized] what had happened and why I was in the hospital.” 

For months, Mr. Miller lived in the burn unit, undergoing countless skin grafts and surgeries. Because viable and nonviable tissue take time to be revealed after burns, surgeons take the minimum amount of tissue during each operation to give damaged tissue a chance to heal, he explained. In Mr. Miller’s case, his feet were amputated first, and later, his legs.

“In those early days from the hospital bed, my mind turned to issues related to identity,” he said. “What do I do with myself? What is the meaning of my life now? I was challenged in those ways. I had to think through who I was, and who I wanted to become.”

Mr. Miller eventually moved to the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (now called The Shirley Ryan AbilityLab), where he started the grueling process of rebuilding his strength and learning to walk on prosthetic legs.

“Any one day was filled with a mix of optimism and good fight and 5 minutes later, exasperation, frustration, tons of pain, and insecurity about my body,” he said. “My family and friends held the gate for me in a way, but a lot of the work was up to me. I had to believe that I deserved this love, that I wanted to be alive, and that there was still something here for me.”

Courtesy BJ Miller

Mr. Miller didn’t have to look far for inspiration. His mom had lived with polio for most of her life and acquired post-polio syndrome as she grew older, he said. When he was a child, his mom walked with crutches, and she became wheelchair-dependent by the time he was a teenager. 

After the first surgery to amputate his feet, Mr. Miller and his mom shared a deep discussion about his joining the ranks of “the disabled,” and how their connection was now even stronger.

“In this way, the injuries unlocked even more experiences to share between us, and more love to feel, and therefore some early sense of gain to complement all the losses happening,” he said. “She had taught me so much about living with disability and had given me all the tools I needed to refashion my sense of self.”
 

From burn patient to medical student

After returning to Princeton University and finishing his undergraduate degree, Mr. Miller decided to go into medicine. He wanted to use his experience to help patients and find ways to improve weaknesses in the health care system, he said. But he made a deal with himself that he wouldn’t become a doctor for the sake of becoming one; he would enter the vocation only if he could do the work and enjoy the job.

“I wasn’t sure if I could do it,” he said. “There weren’t a lot of triple amputees to point to, to say whether this was even mechanically possible, to get through the training. The medical institutions I spoke with knew they had some obligation by law to protect me, but there’s also an obligation that I need to be able to fulfill the competencies. This was uncharted water.”

Because his greatest physical challenge was standing for long periods, instructors at the University of California, San Francisco, made accommodations to alleviate the strain. His clinical rotations for example, were organized near his home to limit the need for travel. On surgical rotations, he was allowed to sit on a stool.

Medical training progressed smoothly until Mr. Miller completed a rotation in his chosen specialty, rehabilitation medicine. He didn’t enjoy it. The passion and meaning he hoped to find was missing. Disillusioned, and with his final year in medical school coming to an end, Mr. Miller dropped out of the Match program. Around the same time, his sister, Lisa, died by suicide.

“My whole family life was in shambles,” he said. “I felt like, ‘I can’t even help my sister, how am I going to help other people?’ ”

Mr. Miller earned his MD and moved to his parents’ home in Milwaukee after his sister’s death. He was close to giving up on medicine, but his deans convinced him to do a post-doc internship. It was as an intern at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, that he completed an elective in palliative care. 

“I fell immediately in love with it the first day,” he said. “This was a field devoted to working with things you can’t change and dealing with a lack of control, what it’s like to live with these diagnoses. This was a place where I could dig into my experience and share that with patients and families. This was a place where my life story had something to offer.”
 

Creating a new form of palliative care

Dr. Miller went on to complete a fellowship at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in hospice and palliative medicine. He became a palliative care physician at UCSF Health, and later directed the Zen Hospice Project, a nonprofit dedicated to teaching mindfulness-based caregiving for professionals, family members, and caregivers.

Courtesy BJ Miller

Gayle Kojimoto, a program manager who worked with Dr. Miller at UCSF’s outpatient palliative care clinic for cancer patients, said Miller was a favorite among patients because of his authenticity and his ability to make them feel understood.

“Patients love him because he is 100% present with them,” said Ms. Kojimoto. “They feel like he can understand their suffering better than other docs. He’s open to hearing about their suffering, when others may not be, and he doesn’t judge them. Many patients have said that seeing him is better than seeing a therapist.”

In 2020, Dr. Miller cofounded Mettle Health, a first-of-its-kind company that aims to reframe the way people think about their well-being as it relates to chronic and serious illness. Mettle Health’s care team provides consultations on a range of topics, including practical, emotional, and existential issues. No physician referrals are needed.

When the pandemic started, Dr. Miller said he and his colleagues felt the moment was ripe for bringing palliative care online to increase access, while decreasing caregiver and clinician burnout.

“We set up Mettle Health as an online palliative care counseling and coaching business and we pulled it out of the healthcare system so that whether you’re a patient or a caregiver you don’t need to satisfy some insurance need to get this kind of care,” he said. “We also realized there are enough people writing prescriptions. The medical piece is relatively well tended to; it’s the psychosocial and spiritual issues, and the existential issues, that are so underdeveloped. We are a social service, not a medical service, and this allows us to complement existing structures of care rather than compete with them.”

Having Dr. Miller as a leader for Mettle Health is a huge driver for why people seek out the company, said Sonya Dolan, director of operations and cofounder of Mettle Health.

“His approach to working with patients, caregivers, and clinicians is something I think sets us apart and makes us special,” she said. “His way of thinking about serious illness and death and dying is incredibly unique and he has a way of talking about and humanizing something that’s scary for a lot of us.”
 

‘Surprised by how much I can still do’

Since the accident, Dr. Miller has come a long way in navigating his physical limitations. In the early years, Dr. Miller said he was determined to do as many activities as he still could. He skied, biked, and pushed himself to stand for long periods on his prosthetic legs.  

“For years, I would force myself to do these things just to prove I could, but not really enjoy them,” he said. “I’d get out on the dance floor or put myself out in vulnerable social situations where I might fall. It was kind of brutal and difficult. But at about year 5 or so, I became much more at ease with myself and more at peace with myself.”

Today, Dr. Miller’s prosthetics make nearly all ambulatory activities possible, but he concentrates on the activities that bring him joy.

“Probably the thing I can still do that surprises people most, including myself, is riding a motorcycle,” he said. “As for my upper body, I’m thoroughly used to living with only one hand and I continue to be surprised at how much I can still do. With enough time and experimentation, I can usually find a way to do what I need/want to do. It took me awhile to figure out how to clap! Now I just pound my chest for the same effect!”

Dr. Miller is an animal-lover and said his pets and nature are a large part of his self-care. His dog Maysie travels nearly everywhere with him and his cats, the Muffin Man and Darkness, enjoy making guest appearances on his Zoom calls. The physician frequently visits the desert in southern Utah and said he loves the arts, architecture, and design.

Dr. Miller’s advice for others who are disabled and want to go into medicine? Live out loud with your truths and be open about your disabilities. Too often, disabled individuals hide their disabilities, lie about them, or shield the world from their story, he said. 

“These are rich, ripe experiences that are incredibly valuable to someone who wants to go out and be of service in the world,” he said. “We should be proud of our experiences as disabled people. The creativity we’ve had to exercise, the workarounds we’ve had to employ, these should not be points of embarrassment, but points of pride. Anyone who wants to pursue clinical training of any kind should use these experiences explicitly. These are sources of strength, not something to be forgiven or tolerated or accommodated.” 

The same goes for physicians who do not have disabilities but who have lived through hardship, pain, struggle, or adversity, he emphasized.

“Find a way to learn from them, find a way to own them,” he said. “Use them as a source of strength and the rest of the world will respond to you differently.”

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

Bruce “BJ” Miller Jr., a 19-year-old Princeton (N.J.) University sophomore, was horsing around with friends near a train track in 1990 when they spotted a parked commuter train. They decided to climb over the train, and Mr. Miller was first up the ladder.

Courtesy BJ Miller

Waking up to a new body

Mr. Miller doesn’t remember much about the accident, but he recalls waking up a few days later in the ICU and feeling the need to use the bathroom. Disoriented, Mr. Miller pulled off his ventilator, climbed out of bed, and tried to walk forward, unaware of his injuries. His feet and legs had not yet been amputated. When the catheter line ran out of slack, he collapsed.

“Eventually, a nurse came rushing in, responding to the ventilator alarm bells going off,” Mr. Miller said. “My dad wasn’t far behind. It became clear to me then that this was not a dream and [I realized] what had happened and why I was in the hospital.” 

For months, Mr. Miller lived in the burn unit, undergoing countless skin grafts and surgeries. Because viable and nonviable tissue take time to be revealed after burns, surgeons take the minimum amount of tissue during each operation to give damaged tissue a chance to heal, he explained. In Mr. Miller’s case, his feet were amputated first, and later, his legs.

“In those early days from the hospital bed, my mind turned to issues related to identity,” he said. “What do I do with myself? What is the meaning of my life now? I was challenged in those ways. I had to think through who I was, and who I wanted to become.”

Mr. Miller eventually moved to the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (now called The Shirley Ryan AbilityLab), where he started the grueling process of rebuilding his strength and learning to walk on prosthetic legs.

“Any one day was filled with a mix of optimism and good fight and 5 minutes later, exasperation, frustration, tons of pain, and insecurity about my body,” he said. “My family and friends held the gate for me in a way, but a lot of the work was up to me. I had to believe that I deserved this love, that I wanted to be alive, and that there was still something here for me.”

Courtesy BJ Miller

Mr. Miller didn’t have to look far for inspiration. His mom had lived with polio for most of her life and acquired post-polio syndrome as she grew older, he said. When he was a child, his mom walked with crutches, and she became wheelchair-dependent by the time he was a teenager. 

After the first surgery to amputate his feet, Mr. Miller and his mom shared a deep discussion about his joining the ranks of “the disabled,” and how their connection was now even stronger.

“In this way, the injuries unlocked even more experiences to share between us, and more love to feel, and therefore some early sense of gain to complement all the losses happening,” he said. “She had taught me so much about living with disability and had given me all the tools I needed to refashion my sense of self.”
 

From burn patient to medical student

After returning to Princeton University and finishing his undergraduate degree, Mr. Miller decided to go into medicine. He wanted to use his experience to help patients and find ways to improve weaknesses in the health care system, he said. But he made a deal with himself that he wouldn’t become a doctor for the sake of becoming one; he would enter the vocation only if he could do the work and enjoy the job.

“I wasn’t sure if I could do it,” he said. “There weren’t a lot of triple amputees to point to, to say whether this was even mechanically possible, to get through the training. The medical institutions I spoke with knew they had some obligation by law to protect me, but there’s also an obligation that I need to be able to fulfill the competencies. This was uncharted water.”

Because his greatest physical challenge was standing for long periods, instructors at the University of California, San Francisco, made accommodations to alleviate the strain. His clinical rotations for example, were organized near his home to limit the need for travel. On surgical rotations, he was allowed to sit on a stool.

Medical training progressed smoothly until Mr. Miller completed a rotation in his chosen specialty, rehabilitation medicine. He didn’t enjoy it. The passion and meaning he hoped to find was missing. Disillusioned, and with his final year in medical school coming to an end, Mr. Miller dropped out of the Match program. Around the same time, his sister, Lisa, died by suicide.

“My whole family life was in shambles,” he said. “I felt like, ‘I can’t even help my sister, how am I going to help other people?’ ”

Mr. Miller earned his MD and moved to his parents’ home in Milwaukee after his sister’s death. He was close to giving up on medicine, but his deans convinced him to do a post-doc internship. It was as an intern at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, that he completed an elective in palliative care. 

“I fell immediately in love with it the first day,” he said. “This was a field devoted to working with things you can’t change and dealing with a lack of control, what it’s like to live with these diagnoses. This was a place where I could dig into my experience and share that with patients and families. This was a place where my life story had something to offer.”
 

Creating a new form of palliative care

Dr. Miller went on to complete a fellowship at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in hospice and palliative medicine. He became a palliative care physician at UCSF Health, and later directed the Zen Hospice Project, a nonprofit dedicated to teaching mindfulness-based caregiving for professionals, family members, and caregivers.

Courtesy BJ Miller

Gayle Kojimoto, a program manager who worked with Dr. Miller at UCSF’s outpatient palliative care clinic for cancer patients, said Miller was a favorite among patients because of his authenticity and his ability to make them feel understood.

“Patients love him because he is 100% present with them,” said Ms. Kojimoto. “They feel like he can understand their suffering better than other docs. He’s open to hearing about their suffering, when others may not be, and he doesn’t judge them. Many patients have said that seeing him is better than seeing a therapist.”

In 2020, Dr. Miller cofounded Mettle Health, a first-of-its-kind company that aims to reframe the way people think about their well-being as it relates to chronic and serious illness. Mettle Health’s care team provides consultations on a range of topics, including practical, emotional, and existential issues. No physician referrals are needed.

When the pandemic started, Dr. Miller said he and his colleagues felt the moment was ripe for bringing palliative care online to increase access, while decreasing caregiver and clinician burnout.

“We set up Mettle Health as an online palliative care counseling and coaching business and we pulled it out of the healthcare system so that whether you’re a patient or a caregiver you don’t need to satisfy some insurance need to get this kind of care,” he said. “We also realized there are enough people writing prescriptions. The medical piece is relatively well tended to; it’s the psychosocial and spiritual issues, and the existential issues, that are so underdeveloped. We are a social service, not a medical service, and this allows us to complement existing structures of care rather than compete with them.”

Having Dr. Miller as a leader for Mettle Health is a huge driver for why people seek out the company, said Sonya Dolan, director of operations and cofounder of Mettle Health.

“His approach to working with patients, caregivers, and clinicians is something I think sets us apart and makes us special,” she said. “His way of thinking about serious illness and death and dying is incredibly unique and he has a way of talking about and humanizing something that’s scary for a lot of us.”
 

‘Surprised by how much I can still do’

Since the accident, Dr. Miller has come a long way in navigating his physical limitations. In the early years, Dr. Miller said he was determined to do as many activities as he still could. He skied, biked, and pushed himself to stand for long periods on his prosthetic legs.  

“For years, I would force myself to do these things just to prove I could, but not really enjoy them,” he said. “I’d get out on the dance floor or put myself out in vulnerable social situations where I might fall. It was kind of brutal and difficult. But at about year 5 or so, I became much more at ease with myself and more at peace with myself.”

Today, Dr. Miller’s prosthetics make nearly all ambulatory activities possible, but he concentrates on the activities that bring him joy.

“Probably the thing I can still do that surprises people most, including myself, is riding a motorcycle,” he said. “As for my upper body, I’m thoroughly used to living with only one hand and I continue to be surprised at how much I can still do. With enough time and experimentation, I can usually find a way to do what I need/want to do. It took me awhile to figure out how to clap! Now I just pound my chest for the same effect!”

Dr. Miller is an animal-lover and said his pets and nature are a large part of his self-care. His dog Maysie travels nearly everywhere with him and his cats, the Muffin Man and Darkness, enjoy making guest appearances on his Zoom calls. The physician frequently visits the desert in southern Utah and said he loves the arts, architecture, and design.

Dr. Miller’s advice for others who are disabled and want to go into medicine? Live out loud with your truths and be open about your disabilities. Too often, disabled individuals hide their disabilities, lie about them, or shield the world from their story, he said. 

“These are rich, ripe experiences that are incredibly valuable to someone who wants to go out and be of service in the world,” he said. “We should be proud of our experiences as disabled people. The creativity we’ve had to exercise, the workarounds we’ve had to employ, these should not be points of embarrassment, but points of pride. Anyone who wants to pursue clinical training of any kind should use these experiences explicitly. These are sources of strength, not something to be forgiven or tolerated or accommodated.” 

The same goes for physicians who do not have disabilities but who have lived through hardship, pain, struggle, or adversity, he emphasized.

“Find a way to learn from them, find a way to own them,” he said. “Use them as a source of strength and the rest of the world will respond to you differently.”

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

Chilblain lupus erythematosus, described by Jonathan Hutchinson, is an uncommon form of cutaneous lupus that affects women more frequently than men. Clinically, distal extremities such as toes, fingertips and heels, as well as the rims of the ears or nose develop erythematous to purple plaques. Lesions may be painful or pruritic. Over time, lesions may develop atrophy and resemble those of discoid lupus. While the pathogenesis is unknown, exposure to cold or wet environments can precipitate lesions.

Histopathology reveals a deep and superficial lymphocytic infiltrate with perieccrine involvement and fibrin deposition in vessels. Dermal edema is often present. Direct immunofluorescence shows an interface dermatitis positive for IgM, IgA, and C3.

The Mayo Clinic developed diagnostic criteria for diagnosing chilblains lupus. Two major criteria are acral skin lesions induced by cold exposure and evidence of lupus erythematosus in skin lesions (histopathologically or by direct immunofluorescence). Three minor criteria are the coexistence of systemic lupus erythematosus or discoid lupus erythematosus, response to antilupus treatment, and negative cryoglobulin and cold agglutinin studies.

Chilblains, or perniosis, has a similar clinical presentation to chilblain lupus erythematosus. However, serologic evidence of lupus, such as a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA), will be absent. Lupus pernio (Besnier-Tenneson syndrome) is a form of sarcoidosis that tends to favor the nose. These lesions are not precipitated by cold. It can be differentiated on histology. “COVID toes” is an entity described during the coronavirus pandemic, during which dermatologists noted pernio-like lesions in patients testing positive for coronavirus.

The patient’s labs revealed a positive ANA at 1:320 in a nucleolar speckled pattern, elevated double-stranded DNA, low C3 and C4 levels, elevated cardiolipin IgM Ab, and elevated sedimentation rate. COVID-19 antigen testing and COVID-19 antibodies were negative. A serum protein electrophoresis was negative. Cryoglobulins were negative.

Treatment includes protection from cold. Smoking cessation should be discussed. Topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatments for mild disease. Antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine can be helpful. Systemic calcium channel blockers, systemic steroids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus have all been reported as treatments. This patient responded well to hydroxychloroquine and topical steroids with full resolution of lesions.

This case was submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Su WP et al. Cutis. 1994 Dec;54(6):395-9.

Werth V and Newman S. Chilblain lupus (SLE pernio). Dermatology Advisor. 2017.

Chilblain lupus erythematosus, described by Jonathan Hutchinson, is an uncommon form of cutaneous lupus that affects women more frequently than men. Clinically, distal extremities such as toes, fingertips and heels, as well as the rims of the ears or nose develop erythematous to purple plaques. Lesions may be painful or pruritic. Over time, lesions may develop atrophy and resemble those of discoid lupus. While the pathogenesis is unknown, exposure to cold or wet environments can precipitate lesions.

Histopathology reveals a deep and superficial lymphocytic infiltrate with perieccrine involvement and fibrin deposition in vessels. Dermal edema is often present. Direct immunofluorescence shows an interface dermatitis positive for IgM, IgA, and C3.

The Mayo Clinic developed diagnostic criteria for diagnosing chilblains lupus. Two major criteria are acral skin lesions induced by cold exposure and evidence of lupus erythematosus in skin lesions (histopathologically or by direct immunofluorescence). Three minor criteria are the coexistence of systemic lupus erythematosus or discoid lupus erythematosus, response to antilupus treatment, and negative cryoglobulin and cold agglutinin studies.

Chilblains, or perniosis, has a similar clinical presentation to chilblain lupus erythematosus. However, serologic evidence of lupus, such as a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA), will be absent. Lupus pernio (Besnier-Tenneson syndrome) is a form of sarcoidosis that tends to favor the nose. These lesions are not precipitated by cold. It can be differentiated on histology. “COVID toes” is an entity described during the coronavirus pandemic, during which dermatologists noted pernio-like lesions in patients testing positive for coronavirus.

The patient’s labs revealed a positive ANA at 1:320 in a nucleolar speckled pattern, elevated double-stranded DNA, low C3 and C4 levels, elevated cardiolipin IgM Ab, and elevated sedimentation rate. COVID-19 antigen testing and COVID-19 antibodies were negative. A serum protein electrophoresis was negative. Cryoglobulins were negative.

Treatment includes protection from cold. Smoking cessation should be discussed. Topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatments for mild disease. Antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine can be helpful. Systemic calcium channel blockers, systemic steroids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus have all been reported as treatments. This patient responded well to hydroxychloroquine and topical steroids with full resolution of lesions.

This case was submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Su WP et al. Cutis. 1994 Dec;54(6):395-9.

Werth V and Newman S. Chilblain lupus (SLE pernio). Dermatology Advisor. 2017.

Chilblain lupus erythematosus, described by Jonathan Hutchinson, is an uncommon form of cutaneous lupus that affects women more frequently than men. Clinically, distal extremities such as toes, fingertips and heels, as well as the rims of the ears or nose develop erythematous to purple plaques. Lesions may be painful or pruritic. Over time, lesions may develop atrophy and resemble those of discoid lupus. While the pathogenesis is unknown, exposure to cold or wet environments can precipitate lesions.

Histopathology reveals a deep and superficial lymphocytic infiltrate with perieccrine involvement and fibrin deposition in vessels. Dermal edema is often present. Direct immunofluorescence shows an interface dermatitis positive for IgM, IgA, and C3.

The Mayo Clinic developed diagnostic criteria for diagnosing chilblains lupus. Two major criteria are acral skin lesions induced by cold exposure and evidence of lupus erythematosus in skin lesions (histopathologically or by direct immunofluorescence). Three minor criteria are the coexistence of systemic lupus erythematosus or discoid lupus erythematosus, response to antilupus treatment, and negative cryoglobulin and cold agglutinin studies.

Chilblains, or perniosis, has a similar clinical presentation to chilblain lupus erythematosus. However, serologic evidence of lupus, such as a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA), will be absent. Lupus pernio (Besnier-Tenneson syndrome) is a form of sarcoidosis that tends to favor the nose. These lesions are not precipitated by cold. It can be differentiated on histology. “COVID toes” is an entity described during the coronavirus pandemic, during which dermatologists noted pernio-like lesions in patients testing positive for coronavirus.

The patient’s labs revealed a positive ANA at 1:320 in a nucleolar speckled pattern, elevated double-stranded DNA, low C3 and C4 levels, elevated cardiolipin IgM Ab, and elevated sedimentation rate. COVID-19 antigen testing and COVID-19 antibodies were negative. A serum protein electrophoresis was negative. Cryoglobulins were negative.

Treatment includes protection from cold. Smoking cessation should be discussed. Topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatments for mild disease. Antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine can be helpful. Systemic calcium channel blockers, systemic steroids, mycophenolate mofetil, and tacrolimus have all been reported as treatments. This patient responded well to hydroxychloroquine and topical steroids with full resolution of lesions.

This case was submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Su WP et al. Cutis. 1994 Dec;54(6):395-9.

Werth V and Newman S. Chilblain lupus (SLE pernio). Dermatology Advisor. 2017.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

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

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

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

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

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

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among women with breast cancer being treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI), supplementation with vitamin D and calcium protected against bone loss after 5 years, according to results from a prospective cohort study in Brazil. The study found no difference in bone mineral density outcomes at 5 years between women with hormone receptor–positive cancers treated with aromatase inhibitors (AIG) and triple negative or HER-2 positive patients who were treated with another therapy (CG).

Courtesy Renata Flores

About two-thirds of women with breast cancer have tumors that are positive for hormone receptors, and so are often treated with endocrine therapy such as selective estrogen receptor modulators or AI. However, there are concerns that AI treatment may lead to a loss of bone mineral density and impacts on quality of life. This loss is influenced by a range of factors, including body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, corticosteroid use, calcium in the diet, and circulating levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D helps to regulate absorption of calcium and phosphorus, ensuring that their plasma concentrations are high enough for adequate bone health. But vitamin D deficiency is a common problem, even in tropical areas such as Brazil. “It is high in the general population and especially in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Thus, vitamin D and calcium supplementation has an impact on these women’s lives,” said lead author Marcelo Antonini, MD, who presented the study (abstract P1-13-04) at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. He is a researcher at Hospital Servidor Publico Estadual in São Paulo, Brazil.

Although the findings are encouraging, more work needs to be done before it leads to a change in practice. “Larger studies must be carried out to prove this theory; however, in noncancer patients we have already well established the benefits of vitamin D and calcium supplementation,” Dr. Antonini said in an interview

The researchers examined women before the start of treatment, at 6 months, and at 5 years. Those with vitamin D levels below 30 ng/mL received 7,000 IU/day for 8 weeks, followed by a 1,000 IU/day maintenance dose. Subjects with osteopenia received a calcium supplement (500 mg calcium carbonate), and those with osteoporosis received 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zometa, Novartis).

There were 140 patients in both the AIG and CG groups. The average age was 65 years. Sixty-four percent of the AIG group and 71% of the CG group were vitamin D deficient at baseline. At 5 years, the frequencies were 17% and 16%, respectively. Both groups showed significant declines in bone mineral density in the femoral neck and femur at both 6 months and 5 years, but there was no significant difference between them. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to bone density loss in the spine.

The study is limited by the fact that it was conducted at a single center and had a small population size.

Another prospective observational study, published earlier this year, looked at vitamin D supplementation in 741 patients (mean age 61.9 years) being treated with aromatase inhibitors, whose baseline vitamin D levels were less 30 ng/mL. They received 16,000 IU dose of oral calcifediol every 2 weeks. At 3 months, individuals who achieved vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or higher were less likely to have joint pain (P < .05). At 12 months, data from 473 patients showed that for every 10-ng/mL increase in serum vitamin D at 3 months, there was a reduction in loss of bone marrow density in the lumbar spine (adjusted beta = +0.177%, P < .05), though there were no associations between vitamin D levels and BMD of the femur or total hip.

“Our results suggest that optimal levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of joint pain related to AI treatment. A target threshold (of vitamin D) levels was set at 40 ng/mL to significantly reduce the increase in joint pain. The authors noted that this threshold is well above the goal of 20 ng/mL recommended by the 2010 Institute of Medicine report.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Antonini has no relevant financial disclosures.