Feature

As a proud member of the Oglala Lakota Nation from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in southwestern South Dakota, Drew Hicks grew up with limited access to basic health care, let alone the luxury of scheduling an appointment with a dermatologist or another medical specialist.

The area – once home to the Lakota war leader Crazy Horse – encompasses nearly 47,000 residents scattered over about 2.2 million acres, larger than the size of Rhode Island, with land marked by rolling mixed grass prairie, sandhills, and badlands. Some of the Oglala Lakota people live in substandard housing and lack regular access to food, running water, and refrigeration, not to mention cell phone and Internet service. “It’s sparse,” said Mr. Hicks, the son of Tribal ranchers who now is a 3rd-year medical student at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Rochester, Minn., and has an early interest in pursuing dermatology. “There is a lot of territory and not a lot of health care serving the population.” From the Hicks home, the nearest place to receive health care is a family medicine practice in Martin, S.D. – about a 15-minute drive on gravel roads in the best of conditions, but in poor weather, it can be difficult, he said. “So, there are environmental challenges besides the limited number of health care providers.”

Photo courtesy Tara Fanning

Clinicians in the practice “did have to be the point of care for everything from dermatologic issues to emergency medicine to delivering a baby, because the next-closest medical facility of any magnitude is 2 hours away,” he said.

Challenges of health literacy and limited access to comprehensive health care at Pine Ridge and other American Indian (AI) and Alaska Native (AN) reservations have long-term consequences. “My own mom struggled to control her blood pressure for years and now has chronic kidney disease,” Mr. Hicks said. “It’s not an uncommon story. Diabetes on the reservation is a big issue.” Then there’s his father, who survived two bouts with melanoma that was diagnosed at an advanced stage. “I think about how that has impacted him, and wonder, had we had a dermatologist who serviced our area, would we have caught things sooner?” he said. “I feel there is so much room for impactful health care deliveries to communities like Pine Ridge.” At the same time, he emphasized, “this isn’t poverty porn. We’re a resilient people. Any effort to engage with AIs or ANs should be from a perspective of a learner, having cultural humility, and seeking out community leaders to help lead you.”

According to the 2020 Census, there are 574 federally recognized sovereign tribal nations in the United States and federal- and state-recognized American Indian reservations in 35 states. AI/AN people make up about 2.9% of the total U.S. population, or 9.7 million, and their life expectancy is an average of 4.4 years less, compared with the general population (a mean of 73.7 vs. 78.1 years, respectively). Because of limited access to dermatologic care in these areas, the risk for developing significant skin conditions and diseases that may go undetected for long stretches of time is increased.

“That can mean advanced skin cancers like basal cell carcinomas that have become larger than what you would see in a typical metropolitan population,” said Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who spent part of her dermatology residency rotating at the Chinle (Ariz.) Service Unit, an Indian Health Service facility, in 2017 and now provides teledermatology and regular in-person dermatology care at that clinic. “The climate there is dry, so you can see bad eczema and dry skin. There’s also a lot of acne and hidradenitis suppurativa. I think the acne and HS is due to the hyperglycemic index diet from the food deserts. Skin disease reflects the climate, the food desert, and the lack of close specialty care.”


 

Acne scarring common

Some published evidence suggests that acne is more prevalent and severe in AI/AN individuals. In a survey of 158 AI/AN individuals with a mean age of 32 years, 79.1% reported a history of acne, 55.1% reported acne scarring, and 31% reported having active lesions. “Looking back on my experience in high school, I definitely see that in myself and in my peers,” Mr. Hicks said. And, while there are limited published studies about the incidence of melanoma in this population, an analysis from 2006 found that the incidence was 3.1 per 100,000 between 2001 and 2005, which was an increase from 1.6 per 100,000 reported between 1992 and 2000.

There’s a lot to unpack for dermatologists caring for the AI/AN population besides the raw health disparities: a long history of distrust between AI/AN people and the federal government, structural racism, geographic isolation, health literacy challenges, and high rates of poverty and unemployment. And while individuals from federally recognized tribes have a legal right to receive health care provided by the Indian Health Service, a component of the Department of Health & Human Services, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in 2017 per capita spending available to the IHS was $4,078, compared with $8,109 for Medicaid, $10,692 for the Veterans Health Administration, and $13,185 for Medicare.

Courtesy Dr. Lucinda Kohn

“Everyone deserves healthy skin and good health,” said Dr. Kohn, whose husband is AI and works in AI law. “Knowing that there are pockets of people who lack that access to care really bothers me. I think the American Indians are frequently overlooked. They’re just not even counted for in certain surveys,” she added, noting that categories are usually defined as Black, Hispanic, Asian, or White.

According to Dr. Kohn, who coauthored a chapter titled “Dermatology on American Indian and Alaska Native Reservations,” for the 2021 book “Dermatology in Rural Settings”, 70% of AIs live in urban areas, “so it’s not just people who live on reservations, though the disparity is greatest there.” To help deliver dermatologic care in the rural areas “where you’re on tribal lands, you must partner with the tribes,” she added. “You must get their permission, operate under their laws and regulations and their rules, learn the local customs, learn about the culture, learn the people, and learn their resources before you practice. That’s the only ethical way to practice.” This also means appreciating the fact that some AI/AN individuals may not understand what a dermatologist could do for them. “One of the bigger hurdles to overcome,” she said, is educating the population that dermatologists can cure skin diseases and that there are good medications for treating the diseases.
 

Shortcomings of teledermatology

Some dermatologists perform teledermatology visits for tribes, often from an office located in a different time zone. “And, they don’t have a sense of what resources are available for the people they’re serving,” Dr. Kohn said. “For example, if they diagnose a potential skin cancer on the face and say, ‘you need a biopsy,’ but the closest dermatologist is 4 hours away, is that really serving the patient? Or, if you tell a patient, ‘I want you to go out and buy Vanicream for your skin,’ but Vanicream costs $17 and the patient can’t even afford to buy food, are you really doing them a service?”

In a survey-based study of 238 AI individuals that is scheduled to be published in late 2023, Dr. Kohn and colleagues asked respondents at two regional powwows in Denver if they would be open to teledermatology – either in their home or in a primary care clinic. Most respondents (70%) lived in urban areas, the rest in rural settings. Nearly half of respondents (42%) “did not want to do teledermatology, even though they couldn’t access in-person dermatology,” Dr. Kohn said. “So, for people who think teledermatology is the answer [to improving access], the respondents to our survey weren’t interested in pursuing that as a solution. I was surprised by that.” When the researchers broke down the responses by age, teenage respondents were even less interested in teledermatology than adults were. “I think there’s something about having someone see you in person, knowing who you are,” she said.
 

Partnerships with tribes

To foster more sustainable change in the delivery of skin care beyond remote teledermatology and periodic visits from volunteers, some dermatology residencies have established partnerships with tribes, including Massachusetts General Hospital’s teaching partnership with the Rosebud Sioux tribe in Rosebud, S.D., and the University of Utah dermatology department’s resident continuity clinic with Navajo Nation in Montezuma Creek, Utah. In 2016, officials from the Utah Navajo Health System reached out to the University of Utah’s dermatology department to inquire about the potential for creating a teledermatology clinic to serve patients who receive primary care at the Montezuma Creek Community Health Center, located in Southeastern Utah on the northern tip of the Navajo Nation.

Stephanie Klein, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the university, spearheaded the clinic’s launch but soon encountered obstacles that ranged from not being able to visualize the patient’s skin clearly on her computer screen to difficulty making a personal connection with patients despite help from Navajo translators. “It was hard to build a relationship,” she said. A few years later, she drove down to meet with officials of the health system and posed the question: “What is the ideal thing you would want from dermatology?”

Continuity, they told her. “They said that a lot of the services they receive in the form of outreach are rotational, where someone might come in for a day, or a week, or five people may rotate throughout the year,” which did not serve them well, said Dr. Klein, who subsequently collaborated with Utah Navajo Health System clinicians to establish a resident continuity clinic, which launched in January 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Stephanie Klein

The arrangement also serves as a continuity clinic for Dr. Klein as an attending physician. Each month, she and one dermatology resident drive 6.5 hours from Salt Lake City to Montezuma Creek, where they spend 1 or 2 full days seeing about 25 patients referred by the primary care clinicians who work there. About one-quarter of the time they fly, thanks to financial support from a private donor. The flight takes about an hour, then it’s an hour-long drive to the actual clinic. “It’s a commitment,” Dr. Klein said. “A resident can come with me if they commit to the clinic for at least 1 year. This enables us to have continuity of care; it allows us to build relationships with the patients and with the care team there.” As for the prior teledermatology visits she had with residents, “I still do those, but now I do them in between the in-person visits, so I’m not meeting people over telehealth; I’m just following up with them.”

Courtesy Dr. Stephanie Klein

amadeustx/Shutterstock

Dermatologic conditions they often encounter include vitiligo, photodermatoses, hidradenitis suppurativa, eczema, psoriasis, and severe acne, often with lots of acne-associated scarring. “In general, we tend to see dramatic or advanced presentations of general dermatology diagnoses,” Dr. Nicholson said. “We see a lot of really extensive psoriasis, which can be socially stigmatizing.”

He recalled one middle-aged man who isolated himself from others because his psoriasis became unbearable. The man refused to leave his house, visit family members, or attend tribal meetups. “He tried to see his regular doctor about it and was given topicals, but his disease was just too extensive,” said Dr. Nicholson, who suggested trying a biologic but learned that the man did not have regular access to refrigeration. “That wasn’t going to work, but we started him on an oral medication, apremilast, which has completely cleared his skin,” he said. “He’s doing great. The last time we saw him he was re-engaged with his family, and he told us he was going on dates. We really improved his quality of life.”

Dr. Klein recalled seeing a 6-year-old girl at the clinic with atopic dermatitis so severe that it caused her to miss several days of school. “When she was in school, she was so distracted by the itching – it was so overwhelming,” she said. She was struggling with topical medicines that weren’t effective, but Dr. Klein got her on dupilumab, and during a follow-up visit the girl told her, “This is the first time in my life I can think about things” other than itching.

According to Dr. Nicholson, some patients seen at the Montezuma Creek clinic are on Medicare or carry standard insurance. “Others have a mix, and others are getting all their medications through the Montezuma Creek clinic or through the IHS clinics,” he said. “I have been surprised at the formulary and our ability to get relatively expensive medications for our patients, like biologics and TNF inhibitors. But it takes some creativity to know what is going to work for your patients’ living situation.”

 

Training more AI/AN dermatologists key

While efforts to increase the culturally respectful and sustainable dermatologic care for AI/AN individuals continue through programs like the continuity clinic at Montezuma Creek, sources interviewed for this story emphasized the importance of training more AI/AN dermatologists. “Of the people who graduate from high school, AIs have the lowest rate of going on to college,” said Dr. Kohn, who serves as a mentor to Mr. Hicks. “Let’s say they get all the way to medical school; it’s about good mentorship and support in what they’re pursuing. We are seeing more AIs in medical school now, something that I personally notice, and I notice it from what Chinle Service Unit tells me. They have received many requests from Native medical students and premed students who want to rotate at Chinle. Native trainees want the experience of being there.”

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the number of AI/AN applicants to medical schools increased from 72 in 2020-2021 to 105 in 2021-2022 but dipped slightly to 94 in 2022-2023. Inspired by a passion to serve Pine Ridge or a community like it, Mr. Hicks decided to apply for medical school. While he doesn’t want to “close any doors” on which medical specialty he ultimately chooses to practice, the current front-runner is dermatology, he said, largely because of the influence of Dr. Kohn and two Mayo dermatologists who have become mentors: Molly Lohman, MD, and Hafsa M. Cantwell, MD. “I didn’t see anyone from my background who was a doctor, so having those role models is so important for Native kids to think, ‘I can do this, too,’ and to pursue it,” he said.

As a proud member of the Oglala Lakota Nation from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in southwestern South Dakota, Drew Hicks grew up with limited access to basic health care, let alone the luxury of scheduling an appointment with a dermatologist or another medical specialist.

The area – once home to the Lakota war leader Crazy Horse – encompasses nearly 47,000 residents scattered over about 2.2 million acres, larger than the size of Rhode Island, with land marked by rolling mixed grass prairie, sandhills, and badlands. Some of the Oglala Lakota people live in substandard housing and lack regular access to food, running water, and refrigeration, not to mention cell phone and Internet service. “It’s sparse,” said Mr. Hicks, the son of Tribal ranchers who now is a 3rd-year medical student at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Rochester, Minn., and has an early interest in pursuing dermatology. “There is a lot of territory and not a lot of health care serving the population.” From the Hicks home, the nearest place to receive health care is a family medicine practice in Martin, S.D. – about a 15-minute drive on gravel roads in the best of conditions, but in poor weather, it can be difficult, he said. “So, there are environmental challenges besides the limited number of health care providers.”

Photo courtesy Tara Fanning

Clinicians in the practice “did have to be the point of care for everything from dermatologic issues to emergency medicine to delivering a baby, because the next-closest medical facility of any magnitude is 2 hours away,” he said.

Challenges of health literacy and limited access to comprehensive health care at Pine Ridge and other American Indian (AI) and Alaska Native (AN) reservations have long-term consequences. “My own mom struggled to control her blood pressure for years and now has chronic kidney disease,” Mr. Hicks said. “It’s not an uncommon story. Diabetes on the reservation is a big issue.” Then there’s his father, who survived two bouts with melanoma that was diagnosed at an advanced stage. “I think about how that has impacted him, and wonder, had we had a dermatologist who serviced our area, would we have caught things sooner?” he said. “I feel there is so much room for impactful health care deliveries to communities like Pine Ridge.” At the same time, he emphasized, “this isn’t poverty porn. We’re a resilient people. Any effort to engage with AIs or ANs should be from a perspective of a learner, having cultural humility, and seeking out community leaders to help lead you.”

According to the 2020 Census, there are 574 federally recognized sovereign tribal nations in the United States and federal- and state-recognized American Indian reservations in 35 states. AI/AN people make up about 2.9% of the total U.S. population, or 9.7 million, and their life expectancy is an average of 4.4 years less, compared with the general population (a mean of 73.7 vs. 78.1 years, respectively). Because of limited access to dermatologic care in these areas, the risk for developing significant skin conditions and diseases that may go undetected for long stretches of time is increased.

“That can mean advanced skin cancers like basal cell carcinomas that have become larger than what you would see in a typical metropolitan population,” said Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who spent part of her dermatology residency rotating at the Chinle (Ariz.) Service Unit, an Indian Health Service facility, in 2017 and now provides teledermatology and regular in-person dermatology care at that clinic. “The climate there is dry, so you can see bad eczema and dry skin. There’s also a lot of acne and hidradenitis suppurativa. I think the acne and HS is due to the hyperglycemic index diet from the food deserts. Skin disease reflects the climate, the food desert, and the lack of close specialty care.”


 

Acne scarring common

Some published evidence suggests that acne is more prevalent and severe in AI/AN individuals. In a survey of 158 AI/AN individuals with a mean age of 32 years, 79.1% reported a history of acne, 55.1% reported acne scarring, and 31% reported having active lesions. “Looking back on my experience in high school, I definitely see that in myself and in my peers,” Mr. Hicks said. And, while there are limited published studies about the incidence of melanoma in this population, an analysis from 2006 found that the incidence was 3.1 per 100,000 between 2001 and 2005, which was an increase from 1.6 per 100,000 reported between 1992 and 2000.

There’s a lot to unpack for dermatologists caring for the AI/AN population besides the raw health disparities: a long history of distrust between AI/AN people and the federal government, structural racism, geographic isolation, health literacy challenges, and high rates of poverty and unemployment. And while individuals from federally recognized tribes have a legal right to receive health care provided by the Indian Health Service, a component of the Department of Health & Human Services, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in 2017 per capita spending available to the IHS was $4,078, compared with $8,109 for Medicaid, $10,692 for the Veterans Health Administration, and $13,185 for Medicare.

Courtesy Dr. Lucinda Kohn

“Everyone deserves healthy skin and good health,” said Dr. Kohn, whose husband is AI and works in AI law. “Knowing that there are pockets of people who lack that access to care really bothers me. I think the American Indians are frequently overlooked. They’re just not even counted for in certain surveys,” she added, noting that categories are usually defined as Black, Hispanic, Asian, or White.

According to Dr. Kohn, who coauthored a chapter titled “Dermatology on American Indian and Alaska Native Reservations,” for the 2021 book “Dermatology in Rural Settings”, 70% of AIs live in urban areas, “so it’s not just people who live on reservations, though the disparity is greatest there.” To help deliver dermatologic care in the rural areas “where you’re on tribal lands, you must partner with the tribes,” she added. “You must get their permission, operate under their laws and regulations and their rules, learn the local customs, learn about the culture, learn the people, and learn their resources before you practice. That’s the only ethical way to practice.” This also means appreciating the fact that some AI/AN individuals may not understand what a dermatologist could do for them. “One of the bigger hurdles to overcome,” she said, is educating the population that dermatologists can cure skin diseases and that there are good medications for treating the diseases.
 

Shortcomings of teledermatology

Some dermatologists perform teledermatology visits for tribes, often from an office located in a different time zone. “And, they don’t have a sense of what resources are available for the people they’re serving,” Dr. Kohn said. “For example, if they diagnose a potential skin cancer on the face and say, ‘you need a biopsy,’ but the closest dermatologist is 4 hours away, is that really serving the patient? Or, if you tell a patient, ‘I want you to go out and buy Vanicream for your skin,’ but Vanicream costs $17 and the patient can’t even afford to buy food, are you really doing them a service?”

In a survey-based study of 238 AI individuals that is scheduled to be published in late 2023, Dr. Kohn and colleagues asked respondents at two regional powwows in Denver if they would be open to teledermatology – either in their home or in a primary care clinic. Most respondents (70%) lived in urban areas, the rest in rural settings. Nearly half of respondents (42%) “did not want to do teledermatology, even though they couldn’t access in-person dermatology,” Dr. Kohn said. “So, for people who think teledermatology is the answer [to improving access], the respondents to our survey weren’t interested in pursuing that as a solution. I was surprised by that.” When the researchers broke down the responses by age, teenage respondents were even less interested in teledermatology than adults were. “I think there’s something about having someone see you in person, knowing who you are,” she said.
 

Partnerships with tribes

To foster more sustainable change in the delivery of skin care beyond remote teledermatology and periodic visits from volunteers, some dermatology residencies have established partnerships with tribes, including Massachusetts General Hospital’s teaching partnership with the Rosebud Sioux tribe in Rosebud, S.D., and the University of Utah dermatology department’s resident continuity clinic with Navajo Nation in Montezuma Creek, Utah. In 2016, officials from the Utah Navajo Health System reached out to the University of Utah’s dermatology department to inquire about the potential for creating a teledermatology clinic to serve patients who receive primary care at the Montezuma Creek Community Health Center, located in Southeastern Utah on the northern tip of the Navajo Nation.

Stephanie Klein, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the university, spearheaded the clinic’s launch but soon encountered obstacles that ranged from not being able to visualize the patient’s skin clearly on her computer screen to difficulty making a personal connection with patients despite help from Navajo translators. “It was hard to build a relationship,” she said. A few years later, she drove down to meet with officials of the health system and posed the question: “What is the ideal thing you would want from dermatology?”

Continuity, they told her. “They said that a lot of the services they receive in the form of outreach are rotational, where someone might come in for a day, or a week, or five people may rotate throughout the year,” which did not serve them well, said Dr. Klein, who subsequently collaborated with Utah Navajo Health System clinicians to establish a resident continuity clinic, which launched in January 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Stephanie Klein

The arrangement also serves as a continuity clinic for Dr. Klein as an attending physician. Each month, she and one dermatology resident drive 6.5 hours from Salt Lake City to Montezuma Creek, where they spend 1 or 2 full days seeing about 25 patients referred by the primary care clinicians who work there. About one-quarter of the time they fly, thanks to financial support from a private donor. The flight takes about an hour, then it’s an hour-long drive to the actual clinic. “It’s a commitment,” Dr. Klein said. “A resident can come with me if they commit to the clinic for at least 1 year. This enables us to have continuity of care; it allows us to build relationships with the patients and with the care team there.” As for the prior teledermatology visits she had with residents, “I still do those, but now I do them in between the in-person visits, so I’m not meeting people over telehealth; I’m just following up with them.”

Courtesy Dr. Stephanie Klein

amadeustx/Shutterstock

Dermatologic conditions they often encounter include vitiligo, photodermatoses, hidradenitis suppurativa, eczema, psoriasis, and severe acne, often with lots of acne-associated scarring. “In general, we tend to see dramatic or advanced presentations of general dermatology diagnoses,” Dr. Nicholson said. “We see a lot of really extensive psoriasis, which can be socially stigmatizing.”

He recalled one middle-aged man who isolated himself from others because his psoriasis became unbearable. The man refused to leave his house, visit family members, or attend tribal meetups. “He tried to see his regular doctor about it and was given topicals, but his disease was just too extensive,” said Dr. Nicholson, who suggested trying a biologic but learned that the man did not have regular access to refrigeration. “That wasn’t going to work, but we started him on an oral medication, apremilast, which has completely cleared his skin,” he said. “He’s doing great. The last time we saw him he was re-engaged with his family, and he told us he was going on dates. We really improved his quality of life.”

Dr. Klein recalled seeing a 6-year-old girl at the clinic with atopic dermatitis so severe that it caused her to miss several days of school. “When she was in school, she was so distracted by the itching – it was so overwhelming,” she said. She was struggling with topical medicines that weren’t effective, but Dr. Klein got her on dupilumab, and during a follow-up visit the girl told her, “This is the first time in my life I can think about things” other than itching.

According to Dr. Nicholson, some patients seen at the Montezuma Creek clinic are on Medicare or carry standard insurance. “Others have a mix, and others are getting all their medications through the Montezuma Creek clinic or through the IHS clinics,” he said. “I have been surprised at the formulary and our ability to get relatively expensive medications for our patients, like biologics and TNF inhibitors. But it takes some creativity to know what is going to work for your patients’ living situation.”

 

Training more AI/AN dermatologists key

While efforts to increase the culturally respectful and sustainable dermatologic care for AI/AN individuals continue through programs like the continuity clinic at Montezuma Creek, sources interviewed for this story emphasized the importance of training more AI/AN dermatologists. “Of the people who graduate from high school, AIs have the lowest rate of going on to college,” said Dr. Kohn, who serves as a mentor to Mr. Hicks. “Let’s say they get all the way to medical school; it’s about good mentorship and support in what they’re pursuing. We are seeing more AIs in medical school now, something that I personally notice, and I notice it from what Chinle Service Unit tells me. They have received many requests from Native medical students and premed students who want to rotate at Chinle. Native trainees want the experience of being there.”

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the number of AI/AN applicants to medical schools increased from 72 in 2020-2021 to 105 in 2021-2022 but dipped slightly to 94 in 2022-2023. Inspired by a passion to serve Pine Ridge or a community like it, Mr. Hicks decided to apply for medical school. While he doesn’t want to “close any doors” on which medical specialty he ultimately chooses to practice, the current front-runner is dermatology, he said, largely because of the influence of Dr. Kohn and two Mayo dermatologists who have become mentors: Molly Lohman, MD, and Hafsa M. Cantwell, MD. “I didn’t see anyone from my background who was a doctor, so having those role models is so important for Native kids to think, ‘I can do this, too,’ and to pursue it,” he said.

As a proud member of the Oglala Lakota Nation from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in southwestern South Dakota, Drew Hicks grew up with limited access to basic health care, let alone the luxury of scheduling an appointment with a dermatologist or another medical specialist.

The area – once home to the Lakota war leader Crazy Horse – encompasses nearly 47,000 residents scattered over about 2.2 million acres, larger than the size of Rhode Island, with land marked by rolling mixed grass prairie, sandhills, and badlands. Some of the Oglala Lakota people live in substandard housing and lack regular access to food, running water, and refrigeration, not to mention cell phone and Internet service. “It’s sparse,” said Mr. Hicks, the son of Tribal ranchers who now is a 3rd-year medical student at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Rochester, Minn., and has an early interest in pursuing dermatology. “There is a lot of territory and not a lot of health care serving the population.” From the Hicks home, the nearest place to receive health care is a family medicine practice in Martin, S.D. – about a 15-minute drive on gravel roads in the best of conditions, but in poor weather, it can be difficult, he said. “So, there are environmental challenges besides the limited number of health care providers.”

Photo courtesy Tara Fanning

Clinicians in the practice “did have to be the point of care for everything from dermatologic issues to emergency medicine to delivering a baby, because the next-closest medical facility of any magnitude is 2 hours away,” he said.

Challenges of health literacy and limited access to comprehensive health care at Pine Ridge and other American Indian (AI) and Alaska Native (AN) reservations have long-term consequences. “My own mom struggled to control her blood pressure for years and now has chronic kidney disease,” Mr. Hicks said. “It’s not an uncommon story. Diabetes on the reservation is a big issue.” Then there’s his father, who survived two bouts with melanoma that was diagnosed at an advanced stage. “I think about how that has impacted him, and wonder, had we had a dermatologist who serviced our area, would we have caught things sooner?” he said. “I feel there is so much room for impactful health care deliveries to communities like Pine Ridge.” At the same time, he emphasized, “this isn’t poverty porn. We’re a resilient people. Any effort to engage with AIs or ANs should be from a perspective of a learner, having cultural humility, and seeking out community leaders to help lead you.”

According to the 2020 Census, there are 574 federally recognized sovereign tribal nations in the United States and federal- and state-recognized American Indian reservations in 35 states. AI/AN people make up about 2.9% of the total U.S. population, or 9.7 million, and their life expectancy is an average of 4.4 years less, compared with the general population (a mean of 73.7 vs. 78.1 years, respectively). Because of limited access to dermatologic care in these areas, the risk for developing significant skin conditions and diseases that may go undetected for long stretches of time is increased.

“That can mean advanced skin cancers like basal cell carcinomas that have become larger than what you would see in a typical metropolitan population,” said Lucinda Kohn, MD, assistant professor of dermatology in the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who spent part of her dermatology residency rotating at the Chinle (Ariz.) Service Unit, an Indian Health Service facility, in 2017 and now provides teledermatology and regular in-person dermatology care at that clinic. “The climate there is dry, so you can see bad eczema and dry skin. There’s also a lot of acne and hidradenitis suppurativa. I think the acne and HS is due to the hyperglycemic index diet from the food deserts. Skin disease reflects the climate, the food desert, and the lack of close specialty care.”


 

Acne scarring common

Some published evidence suggests that acne is more prevalent and severe in AI/AN individuals. In a survey of 158 AI/AN individuals with a mean age of 32 years, 79.1% reported a history of acne, 55.1% reported acne scarring, and 31% reported having active lesions. “Looking back on my experience in high school, I definitely see that in myself and in my peers,” Mr. Hicks said. And, while there are limited published studies about the incidence of melanoma in this population, an analysis from 2006 found that the incidence was 3.1 per 100,000 between 2001 and 2005, which was an increase from 1.6 per 100,000 reported between 1992 and 2000.

There’s a lot to unpack for dermatologists caring for the AI/AN population besides the raw health disparities: a long history of distrust between AI/AN people and the federal government, structural racism, geographic isolation, health literacy challenges, and high rates of poverty and unemployment. And while individuals from federally recognized tribes have a legal right to receive health care provided by the Indian Health Service, a component of the Department of Health & Human Services, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in 2017 per capita spending available to the IHS was $4,078, compared with $8,109 for Medicaid, $10,692 for the Veterans Health Administration, and $13,185 for Medicare.

Courtesy Dr. Lucinda Kohn

“Everyone deserves healthy skin and good health,” said Dr. Kohn, whose husband is AI and works in AI law. “Knowing that there are pockets of people who lack that access to care really bothers me. I think the American Indians are frequently overlooked. They’re just not even counted for in certain surveys,” she added, noting that categories are usually defined as Black, Hispanic, Asian, or White.

According to Dr. Kohn, who coauthored a chapter titled “Dermatology on American Indian and Alaska Native Reservations,” for the 2021 book “Dermatology in Rural Settings”, 70% of AIs live in urban areas, “so it’s not just people who live on reservations, though the disparity is greatest there.” To help deliver dermatologic care in the rural areas “where you’re on tribal lands, you must partner with the tribes,” she added. “You must get their permission, operate under their laws and regulations and their rules, learn the local customs, learn about the culture, learn the people, and learn their resources before you practice. That’s the only ethical way to practice.” This also means appreciating the fact that some AI/AN individuals may not understand what a dermatologist could do for them. “One of the bigger hurdles to overcome,” she said, is educating the population that dermatologists can cure skin diseases and that there are good medications for treating the diseases.
 

Shortcomings of teledermatology

Some dermatologists perform teledermatology visits for tribes, often from an office located in a different time zone. “And, they don’t have a sense of what resources are available for the people they’re serving,” Dr. Kohn said. “For example, if they diagnose a potential skin cancer on the face and say, ‘you need a biopsy,’ but the closest dermatologist is 4 hours away, is that really serving the patient? Or, if you tell a patient, ‘I want you to go out and buy Vanicream for your skin,’ but Vanicream costs $17 and the patient can’t even afford to buy food, are you really doing them a service?”

In a survey-based study of 238 AI individuals that is scheduled to be published in late 2023, Dr. Kohn and colleagues asked respondents at two regional powwows in Denver if they would be open to teledermatology – either in their home or in a primary care clinic. Most respondents (70%) lived in urban areas, the rest in rural settings. Nearly half of respondents (42%) “did not want to do teledermatology, even though they couldn’t access in-person dermatology,” Dr. Kohn said. “So, for people who think teledermatology is the answer [to improving access], the respondents to our survey weren’t interested in pursuing that as a solution. I was surprised by that.” When the researchers broke down the responses by age, teenage respondents were even less interested in teledermatology than adults were. “I think there’s something about having someone see you in person, knowing who you are,” she said.
 

Partnerships with tribes

To foster more sustainable change in the delivery of skin care beyond remote teledermatology and periodic visits from volunteers, some dermatology residencies have established partnerships with tribes, including Massachusetts General Hospital’s teaching partnership with the Rosebud Sioux tribe in Rosebud, S.D., and the University of Utah dermatology department’s resident continuity clinic with Navajo Nation in Montezuma Creek, Utah. In 2016, officials from the Utah Navajo Health System reached out to the University of Utah’s dermatology department to inquire about the potential for creating a teledermatology clinic to serve patients who receive primary care at the Montezuma Creek Community Health Center, located in Southeastern Utah on the northern tip of the Navajo Nation.

Stephanie Klein, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the university, spearheaded the clinic’s launch but soon encountered obstacles that ranged from not being able to visualize the patient’s skin clearly on her computer screen to difficulty making a personal connection with patients despite help from Navajo translators. “It was hard to build a relationship,” she said. A few years later, she drove down to meet with officials of the health system and posed the question: “What is the ideal thing you would want from dermatology?”

Continuity, they told her. “They said that a lot of the services they receive in the form of outreach are rotational, where someone might come in for a day, or a week, or five people may rotate throughout the year,” which did not serve them well, said Dr. Klein, who subsequently collaborated with Utah Navajo Health System clinicians to establish a resident continuity clinic, which launched in January 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Stephanie Klein

The arrangement also serves as a continuity clinic for Dr. Klein as an attending physician. Each month, she and one dermatology resident drive 6.5 hours from Salt Lake City to Montezuma Creek, where they spend 1 or 2 full days seeing about 25 patients referred by the primary care clinicians who work there. About one-quarter of the time they fly, thanks to financial support from a private donor. The flight takes about an hour, then it’s an hour-long drive to the actual clinic. “It’s a commitment,” Dr. Klein said. “A resident can come with me if they commit to the clinic for at least 1 year. This enables us to have continuity of care; it allows us to build relationships with the patients and with the care team there.” As for the prior teledermatology visits she had with residents, “I still do those, but now I do them in between the in-person visits, so I’m not meeting people over telehealth; I’m just following up with them.”

Courtesy Dr. Stephanie Klein

amadeustx/Shutterstock

Dermatologic conditions they often encounter include vitiligo, photodermatoses, hidradenitis suppurativa, eczema, psoriasis, and severe acne, often with lots of acne-associated scarring. “In general, we tend to see dramatic or advanced presentations of general dermatology diagnoses,” Dr. Nicholson said. “We see a lot of really extensive psoriasis, which can be socially stigmatizing.”

He recalled one middle-aged man who isolated himself from others because his psoriasis became unbearable. The man refused to leave his house, visit family members, or attend tribal meetups. “He tried to see his regular doctor about it and was given topicals, but his disease was just too extensive,” said Dr. Nicholson, who suggested trying a biologic but learned that the man did not have regular access to refrigeration. “That wasn’t going to work, but we started him on an oral medication, apremilast, which has completely cleared his skin,” he said. “He’s doing great. The last time we saw him he was re-engaged with his family, and he told us he was going on dates. We really improved his quality of life.”

Dr. Klein recalled seeing a 6-year-old girl at the clinic with atopic dermatitis so severe that it caused her to miss several days of school. “When she was in school, she was so distracted by the itching – it was so overwhelming,” she said. She was struggling with topical medicines that weren’t effective, but Dr. Klein got her on dupilumab, and during a follow-up visit the girl told her, “This is the first time in my life I can think about things” other than itching.

According to Dr. Nicholson, some patients seen at the Montezuma Creek clinic are on Medicare or carry standard insurance. “Others have a mix, and others are getting all their medications through the Montezuma Creek clinic or through the IHS clinics,” he said. “I have been surprised at the formulary and our ability to get relatively expensive medications for our patients, like biologics and TNF inhibitors. But it takes some creativity to know what is going to work for your patients’ living situation.”

 

Training more AI/AN dermatologists key

While efforts to increase the culturally respectful and sustainable dermatologic care for AI/AN individuals continue through programs like the continuity clinic at Montezuma Creek, sources interviewed for this story emphasized the importance of training more AI/AN dermatologists. “Of the people who graduate from high school, AIs have the lowest rate of going on to college,” said Dr. Kohn, who serves as a mentor to Mr. Hicks. “Let’s say they get all the way to medical school; it’s about good mentorship and support in what they’re pursuing. We are seeing more AIs in medical school now, something that I personally notice, and I notice it from what Chinle Service Unit tells me. They have received many requests from Native medical students and premed students who want to rotate at Chinle. Native trainees want the experience of being there.”

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the number of AI/AN applicants to medical schools increased from 72 in 2020-2021 to 105 in 2021-2022 but dipped slightly to 94 in 2022-2023. Inspired by a passion to serve Pine Ridge or a community like it, Mr. Hicks decided to apply for medical school. While he doesn’t want to “close any doors” on which medical specialty he ultimately chooses to practice, the current front-runner is dermatology, he said, largely because of the influence of Dr. Kohn and two Mayo dermatologists who have become mentors: Molly Lohman, MD, and Hafsa M. Cantwell, MD. “I didn’t see anyone from my background who was a doctor, so having those role models is so important for Native kids to think, ‘I can do this, too,’ and to pursue it,” he said.

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

The best-selling drug Humira (adalimumab) now faces competition in the United States after a 20-year monopoly. The first adalimumab biosimilar, Amjevita, launched in the United States on January 31, and in July, seven additional biosimilars became available. These drugs have the potential to lower prescription drug prices, but when and by how much remains to be seen.

Here’s what you need to know about adalimumab biosimilars.
 

What Humira biosimilars are now available?

Eight different biosimilars have launched in 2023 with discounts as large at 85% from Humira’s list price of $6,922. A few companies also offer two price points.

Three of these biosimilars – Hadlima, Hyrimoz, and Yuflyma – are available in high concentration formulations. This high concentration formulation makes up 85% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report from Goodroot, a collection of companies focused on lowering health care costs.

Cyltezo is currently the only adalimumab biosimilar with an interchangeability designation, meaning that a pharmacist can substitute the biosimilar for an equivalent Humira prescription without the intervention of a clinician. A total of 47 states allow for these substitutions without prior approval from a clinician, according to Goodroot, and the clinician must be notified of the switch within a certain time frame. A total of 40 states require that patients be notified of the switch before substitution.

However, it’s not clear if this interchangeability designation will prove an advantage for Cyltezo, as it is interchangeable with the lower concentration version of Humira that makes up just 15% of prescriptions.

Most of the companies behind these biosimilars are pursuing interchangeability designations for their drugs, except for Fresenius Kabi (Idacio) and Coherus (Yusimry).

A ninth biosimilar, Pfizer’s adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), is not yet on the market and is currently awaiting an approval decision from the Food and Drug Administration to add an interchangeability designation to its prior approval for a low-concentration formulation.
 

Why are they priced differently?

The two price points offer different deals to payers. Pharmacy benefit managers make confidential agreements with drug manufacturers to get a discount – called a rebate – to get the drug on the PBM’s formulary. The PBM keeps a portion of that rebate, and the rest is passed on to the insurance company and patients. Biosimilars at a higher price point will likely offer larger rebates. Biosimilars offered at lower price points incorporate this discount up front in their list pricing and likely will not offer large rebates.

Will biosimilars be covered by payers?

Currently, biosimilars are being offered on formularies at parity with Humira, meaning they are on the same tier. The PBM companies OptumRx and Cigna Group’s Express Scripts will offer Amjevita (at both price points), Cyltezo, and Hyrimoz (at both price points).

“This decision allows our clients flexibility to provide access to the lower list price, so members in high-deductible plans and benefit designs with coinsurance can experience lower out-of-pocket costs,” said OptumRx spokesperson Isaac Sorensen in an email.

Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, which uses a direct-to-consumer model, will offer Yusimry for $567.27 on its website. SmithRx, a PBM based in San Francisco, announced it would partner with Cost Plus Drugs to offer Yusimry, adding that SmithRx members can use their insurance benefits to further reduce out-of-pocket costs. RxPreferred, another PBM, will also offer Yusimry through its partnership with Cuban’s company.

The news website Formulary Watch previously reported that CVS Caremark, another of the biggest PBMs, will be offering Amjevita, but as a nonpreferred brand, while Humira remains the preferred brand. CVS Caremark did not respond to a request for comment.
 

Will patients pay less?

Biosimilars have been touted as a potential solution to lower spending on biologic drugs, but it’s unknown if patients will ultimately benefit with lower out-of-pocket costs. It’s “impossible to predict” if the discount that third-party payers pay will be passed on to consumers, said Mark Fendrick, MD, who directs the University of Michigan Center for Value-based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor.

Michigan Medicine

Generally, a consumer’s copay is a percentage of a drug’s list price, so it stands to reason that a low drug price would result in lower out-of-pocket payments. While this is mostly true, Humira has a successful copay assistance program to lower prescription costs for consumers. According to a 2022 IQVIA report, 82% of commercial prescriptions cost patients less than $10 for Humira because of this program.

To appeal to patients, biosimilar companies will need to offer similar savings, Dr. Fendrick added. “There will be some discontent if patients are actually asked to pay more out-of-pocket for a less expensive drug,” he said.

All eight companies behind these biosimilars are offering or will be launching copay saving programs, many which advertise copays as low as $0 per month for eligible patients.
 

How will Humira respond?

Marta Wosińska, PhD, a health care economist at the Brookings Institute, Washington, predicts payers will use these lower biosimilar prices to negotiate better deals with AbbVie, Humira’s manufacturer. “We have a lot of players coming into [the market] right now, so the competition is really fierce,” she said. In response, AbbVie will need to increase rebates on Humira and/or lower its price to compete with these biosimilars. 

“The ball is in AbbVie’s court,” she said. “If [the company] is not willing to drop price sufficiently, then payers will start switching to biosimilars.”

Dr. Fendrick reported past financial relationships and consulting arrangements with AbbVie, Amgen, Arnold Ventures, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, and many other companies. Dr. Wosińska has received funding from Arnold Ventures and serves as an expert witness on antitrust cases involving generic medication.

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

The best-selling drug Humira (adalimumab) now faces competition in the United States after a 20-year monopoly. The first adalimumab biosimilar, Amjevita, launched in the United States on January 31, and in July, seven additional biosimilars became available. These drugs have the potential to lower prescription drug prices, but when and by how much remains to be seen.

Here’s what you need to know about adalimumab biosimilars.
 

What Humira biosimilars are now available?

Eight different biosimilars have launched in 2023 with discounts as large at 85% from Humira’s list price of $6,922. A few companies also offer two price points.

Three of these biosimilars – Hadlima, Hyrimoz, and Yuflyma – are available in high concentration formulations. This high concentration formulation makes up 85% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report from Goodroot, a collection of companies focused on lowering health care costs.

Cyltezo is currently the only adalimumab biosimilar with an interchangeability designation, meaning that a pharmacist can substitute the biosimilar for an equivalent Humira prescription without the intervention of a clinician. A total of 47 states allow for these substitutions without prior approval from a clinician, according to Goodroot, and the clinician must be notified of the switch within a certain time frame. A total of 40 states require that patients be notified of the switch before substitution.

However, it’s not clear if this interchangeability designation will prove an advantage for Cyltezo, as it is interchangeable with the lower concentration version of Humira that makes up just 15% of prescriptions.

Most of the companies behind these biosimilars are pursuing interchangeability designations for their drugs, except for Fresenius Kabi (Idacio) and Coherus (Yusimry).

A ninth biosimilar, Pfizer’s adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), is not yet on the market and is currently awaiting an approval decision from the Food and Drug Administration to add an interchangeability designation to its prior approval for a low-concentration formulation.
 

Why are they priced differently?

The two price points offer different deals to payers. Pharmacy benefit managers make confidential agreements with drug manufacturers to get a discount – called a rebate – to get the drug on the PBM’s formulary. The PBM keeps a portion of that rebate, and the rest is passed on to the insurance company and patients. Biosimilars at a higher price point will likely offer larger rebates. Biosimilars offered at lower price points incorporate this discount up front in their list pricing and likely will not offer large rebates.

Will biosimilars be covered by payers?

Currently, biosimilars are being offered on formularies at parity with Humira, meaning they are on the same tier. The PBM companies OptumRx and Cigna Group’s Express Scripts will offer Amjevita (at both price points), Cyltezo, and Hyrimoz (at both price points).

“This decision allows our clients flexibility to provide access to the lower list price, so members in high-deductible plans and benefit designs with coinsurance can experience lower out-of-pocket costs,” said OptumRx spokesperson Isaac Sorensen in an email.

Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, which uses a direct-to-consumer model, will offer Yusimry for $567.27 on its website. SmithRx, a PBM based in San Francisco, announced it would partner with Cost Plus Drugs to offer Yusimry, adding that SmithRx members can use their insurance benefits to further reduce out-of-pocket costs. RxPreferred, another PBM, will also offer Yusimry through its partnership with Cuban’s company.

The news website Formulary Watch previously reported that CVS Caremark, another of the biggest PBMs, will be offering Amjevita, but as a nonpreferred brand, while Humira remains the preferred brand. CVS Caremark did not respond to a request for comment.
 

Will patients pay less?

Biosimilars have been touted as a potential solution to lower spending on biologic drugs, but it’s unknown if patients will ultimately benefit with lower out-of-pocket costs. It’s “impossible to predict” if the discount that third-party payers pay will be passed on to consumers, said Mark Fendrick, MD, who directs the University of Michigan Center for Value-based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor.

Michigan Medicine

Generally, a consumer’s copay is a percentage of a drug’s list price, so it stands to reason that a low drug price would result in lower out-of-pocket payments. While this is mostly true, Humira has a successful copay assistance program to lower prescription costs for consumers. According to a 2022 IQVIA report, 82% of commercial prescriptions cost patients less than $10 for Humira because of this program.

To appeal to patients, biosimilar companies will need to offer similar savings, Dr. Fendrick added. “There will be some discontent if patients are actually asked to pay more out-of-pocket for a less expensive drug,” he said.

All eight companies behind these biosimilars are offering or will be launching copay saving programs, many which advertise copays as low as $0 per month for eligible patients.
 

How will Humira respond?

Marta Wosińska, PhD, a health care economist at the Brookings Institute, Washington, predicts payers will use these lower biosimilar prices to negotiate better deals with AbbVie, Humira’s manufacturer. “We have a lot of players coming into [the market] right now, so the competition is really fierce,” she said. In response, AbbVie will need to increase rebates on Humira and/or lower its price to compete with these biosimilars. 

“The ball is in AbbVie’s court,” she said. “If [the company] is not willing to drop price sufficiently, then payers will start switching to biosimilars.”

Dr. Fendrick reported past financial relationships and consulting arrangements with AbbVie, Amgen, Arnold Ventures, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, and many other companies. Dr. Wosińska has received funding from Arnold Ventures and serves as an expert witness on antitrust cases involving generic medication.

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

The best-selling drug Humira (adalimumab) now faces competition in the United States after a 20-year monopoly. The first adalimumab biosimilar, Amjevita, launched in the United States on January 31, and in July, seven additional biosimilars became available. These drugs have the potential to lower prescription drug prices, but when and by how much remains to be seen.

Here’s what you need to know about adalimumab biosimilars.
 

What Humira biosimilars are now available?

Eight different biosimilars have launched in 2023 with discounts as large at 85% from Humira’s list price of $6,922. A few companies also offer two price points.

Three of these biosimilars – Hadlima, Hyrimoz, and Yuflyma – are available in high concentration formulations. This high concentration formulation makes up 85% of Humira prescriptions, according to a report from Goodroot, a collection of companies focused on lowering health care costs.

Cyltezo is currently the only adalimumab biosimilar with an interchangeability designation, meaning that a pharmacist can substitute the biosimilar for an equivalent Humira prescription without the intervention of a clinician. A total of 47 states allow for these substitutions without prior approval from a clinician, according to Goodroot, and the clinician must be notified of the switch within a certain time frame. A total of 40 states require that patients be notified of the switch before substitution.

However, it’s not clear if this interchangeability designation will prove an advantage for Cyltezo, as it is interchangeable with the lower concentration version of Humira that makes up just 15% of prescriptions.

Most of the companies behind these biosimilars are pursuing interchangeability designations for their drugs, except for Fresenius Kabi (Idacio) and Coherus (Yusimry).

A ninth biosimilar, Pfizer’s adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), is not yet on the market and is currently awaiting an approval decision from the Food and Drug Administration to add an interchangeability designation to its prior approval for a low-concentration formulation.
 

Why are they priced differently?

The two price points offer different deals to payers. Pharmacy benefit managers make confidential agreements with drug manufacturers to get a discount – called a rebate – to get the drug on the PBM’s formulary. The PBM keeps a portion of that rebate, and the rest is passed on to the insurance company and patients. Biosimilars at a higher price point will likely offer larger rebates. Biosimilars offered at lower price points incorporate this discount up front in their list pricing and likely will not offer large rebates.

Will biosimilars be covered by payers?

Currently, biosimilars are being offered on formularies at parity with Humira, meaning they are on the same tier. The PBM companies OptumRx and Cigna Group’s Express Scripts will offer Amjevita (at both price points), Cyltezo, and Hyrimoz (at both price points).

“This decision allows our clients flexibility to provide access to the lower list price, so members in high-deductible plans and benefit designs with coinsurance can experience lower out-of-pocket costs,” said OptumRx spokesperson Isaac Sorensen in an email.

Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, which uses a direct-to-consumer model, will offer Yusimry for $567.27 on its website. SmithRx, a PBM based in San Francisco, announced it would partner with Cost Plus Drugs to offer Yusimry, adding that SmithRx members can use their insurance benefits to further reduce out-of-pocket costs. RxPreferred, another PBM, will also offer Yusimry through its partnership with Cuban’s company.

The news website Formulary Watch previously reported that CVS Caremark, another of the biggest PBMs, will be offering Amjevita, but as a nonpreferred brand, while Humira remains the preferred brand. CVS Caremark did not respond to a request for comment.
 

Will patients pay less?

Biosimilars have been touted as a potential solution to lower spending on biologic drugs, but it’s unknown if patients will ultimately benefit with lower out-of-pocket costs. It’s “impossible to predict” if the discount that third-party payers pay will be passed on to consumers, said Mark Fendrick, MD, who directs the University of Michigan Center for Value-based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor.

Michigan Medicine

Generally, a consumer’s copay is a percentage of a drug’s list price, so it stands to reason that a low drug price would result in lower out-of-pocket payments. While this is mostly true, Humira has a successful copay assistance program to lower prescription costs for consumers. According to a 2022 IQVIA report, 82% of commercial prescriptions cost patients less than $10 for Humira because of this program.

To appeal to patients, biosimilar companies will need to offer similar savings, Dr. Fendrick added. “There will be some discontent if patients are actually asked to pay more out-of-pocket for a less expensive drug,” he said.

All eight companies behind these biosimilars are offering or will be launching copay saving programs, many which advertise copays as low as $0 per month for eligible patients.
 

How will Humira respond?

Marta Wosińska, PhD, a health care economist at the Brookings Institute, Washington, predicts payers will use these lower biosimilar prices to negotiate better deals with AbbVie, Humira’s manufacturer. “We have a lot of players coming into [the market] right now, so the competition is really fierce,” she said. In response, AbbVie will need to increase rebates on Humira and/or lower its price to compete with these biosimilars. 

“The ball is in AbbVie’s court,” she said. “If [the company] is not willing to drop price sufficiently, then payers will start switching to biosimilars.”

Dr. Fendrick reported past financial relationships and consulting arrangements with AbbVie, Amgen, Arnold Ventures, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, and many other companies. Dr. Wosińska has received funding from Arnold Ventures and serves as an expert witness on antitrust cases involving generic medication.

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

In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.

Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.

“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.

The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.

Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.

Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.

“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
 

Unknown side effects, new diseases

Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”

At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.

General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.

Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.

In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.

But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.

In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.

“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Finding patients

Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.

Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.

But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.

Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.

Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.

Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.

Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.

“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.

The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”

Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.

But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.

The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”

Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
 

The whole patient

Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.

But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.

All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.

“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.

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

In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.

Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.

“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.

The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.

Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.

Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.

“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
 

Unknown side effects, new diseases

Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”

At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.

General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.

Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.

In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.

But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.

In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.

“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Finding patients

Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.

Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.

But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.

Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.

Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.

Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.

Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.

“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.

The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”

Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.

But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.

The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”

Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
 

The whole patient

Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.

But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.

All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.

“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.

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

In Colorado and Wyoming, nearly every baby born since 2020 is tested for signs of a mutation in the SMN1 gene, an indicator of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). And in 4 years, genetic counselor Melissa Gibbons has seen 24 positive results. She has prepped 24 different pediatricians and family doctors to deliver the news: A seemingly perfect newborn likely has a lethal genetic disease.

Most of these clinicians had never cared for a child with SMA before, nor did they know that lifesaving gene therapy for the condition now exists. Still, the physicians were foundational to getting babies emergency treatment and monitoring the child’s safety after the fact.

“They are boots on the ground for this kind of [work],” Ms. Gibbons, who is the newborn screen coordinator for SMA in both states, told this news organization. “I’m not even sure they realize it.” As of today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved 16 gene therapies for the treatment of rare and debilitating diseases once considered lethal, such as SMA and cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy.

The newest addition to the list of approvals is Elevidys, Sarepta’s gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). These conditions can now be mitigated, abated for years at a time, and even cured using treatments that tweak a patient’s DNA or RNA.

Hundreds of treatments are under development using the same mechanism. Viruses, liposomes, and other vectors of all kinds are being used to usher new genes into cells, correcting faulty copies or equipping a cell to fight disease. Cells gain the ability to make lifesaving proteins – proteins that heal wounds, restore muscle function, and fight cancer.

Within the decade, a significant fraction of the pediatric population will have gone through gene therapy, experts told this news organization. And primary care stands to be a linchpin in the scale-up of this kind of precision genetic medicine. Pediatricians and general practitioners will be central to finding and monitoring the patients that need these treatments. But the time and support doctors will need to fill that role remain scarce.

“This is a world we are creating right now, quite literally,” said Stanley Nelson, MD, director of the center for Duchenne muscular dystrophy at the University of California, Los Angeles. These cases – some before gene therapy and some after – will show up in primary care offices before the textbook is written.
 

Unknown side effects, new diseases

Even now, gene therapy is sequestered away in large academic medical research centers. The diagnosis, decision-making, and aftercare are handled by subspecialists working on clinical trials. While the research is ongoing, trial sponsors are keeping a close eye on enrolled patients. But that’s only until these drugs get market approval, Phil Beales, MD, chief medical officer at Congenica, a digital health company specializing in genome analysis support, said. Afterward, “the trialists will no longer have a role in looking after those patients.”

At that point, the role of primary care clinicians will be critically important. Although they probably will not manage gene-therapy patients on their own – comanaging them instead with subspecialists – they will be involved in the ordering and monitoring of safety labs and other tests.

General practitioners “need to know side effects because they are going to deal with side effects when someone calls them in the middle of the night,” said Dr. Beales, who also is chief executive officer of Axovia Therapeutics, a biotech company developing gene therapies.

Some of the side effects that come with gene therapy are established. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) or AAV-mediated gene therapies carry an increased risk for damage to the heart and liver, Dr. Nelson said. Other side effects are less well known and could be specific to the treatment and the tissue it targets. Primary care will be critical in detecting these unexpected side effects and expediting visits with subspecialists, he said.

In rural Wyoming, pediatricians and family doctors are especially important, Ms. Gibbons said. In the 30-90 days after gene therapy, patients need a lot of follow-up for safety reasons.

But aftercare for gene therapy will be more than just monitoring and managing side effects. The diseases themselves will change. Patients will be living with conditions that once were lethal.

In some cases, gene therapy may largely eliminate the disease. The data suggest that thalassemia, for example, can be largely cured for decades with one infusion of a patient’s genetically modified hematopoietic stem cells made using bluebird bio’s Zynteglo, according to Christy Duncan, MD, medical director of clinical research at the gene therapy program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

But other gene therapies, like the one for DMD, will offer a “spectrum of benefits,” Dr. Nelson said. They will be lifesaving, but the signs of the disease will linger. Clinicians will be learning alongside specialists what the new disease state for DMD and other rare diseases looks like after gene therapy.

“As we get hundreds of such therapies, [post–gene therapy] will amount to a substantial part of the pediatric population,” Dr. Nelson said.
 

Finding patients

Many of these rare diseases that plague young patients are unmistakable. Children with moderate or severe dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, for instance, carry a mutation that prevents them from making type VII collagen. The babies suffer wounds and excessive bleeding and tend to receive a quick diagnosis within the first 6 months of life, according to Andy Orth, chief commercial officer at Krystal Bio, manufacturer of a new wound-healing gene therapy, Vyjuvek, for the disorder.

Other rare neurologic or muscular diseases can go undiagnosed for years. Until recently, drug companies and researchers have had little motivation to speed up the timeline because early diagnosis of a disease like DMD would not change the outcome, Dr. Nelson said.

But with gene therapy, prognoses are changing. And finding diseases early could soon mean preserving muscular function or preventing neurologic damage, Dr. Duncan said.

Newborn sequencing “is not standard of care yet, but it’s certainly coming,” Josh Peterson, MD, MPH, director of the center for precision medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

A recent survey of 238 specialists in rare diseases found that roughly 90% believe whole-genome sequencing should be available to all newborns. And 80% of those experts endorse 42 genes as disease predictors. Screening for rare diseases at birth could reveal a host of conditions in the first week of life and expedite treatment. But this strategy will often rely on primary care and pediatricians interpreting the results.

Most pediatricians think sequencing is a great idea, but they do not feel comfortable doing it themselves, Dr. Peterson said. The good news, he said, is that manufacturers have made screening tests straightforward. Some drug companies even offer free screenings for gene therapy candidates.

Dr. Peterson predicts pediatricians will need to be equipped to deliver negative results on their own, which will be the case for around 97%-99% of patients. They also will need to be clear on whether a negative result is definitive or if more testing is warranted.

Positive results are more nuanced. Genetic counseling is the ideal resource when delivering this kind of news to patients, but counselors are a scarce resource nationally – and particularly in rural areas, Dr. Nelson said. Physicians likely will have to rely on their own counseling training to some degree.

“I feel very strongly that genetic counselors are in short supply,” Ms. Gibbons in Colorado said. Patients need a friendly resource who can talk them through the disease and how it works. And that discussion is not a one-off, she said.

The number of board-certified genetic counselors in the United States has doubled to more than 6,000 in the past 10 years – a pace that is expected to continue, according to the National Society of Genetic Counselors. “However, the geographical distribution of genetic counselors is most concentrated in urban centers.”

Equally important to the counseling experience, according to Dr. Duncan at Boston Children’s, is a primary care physician’s network of connections. The best newborn screening rollouts across the country have succeeded because clinicians knew where to send people next and how to get families the help they needed, she said.

But she also cautioned that this learning curve will soon be overwhelming. As gene therapy expands, it may be difficult for primary care doctors to keep up with the science, treatment studies, and commercially available therapies. “It’s asking too much,” Dr. Duncan said.

The structure of primary care already stretches practitioners thin and will “affect how well precision medicine can be adopted and disseminated,” Dr. Peterson said. “I think that is a key issue.”

Artificial intelligence may offer a partial solution. Some genetic counseling models already exist, but their utility for clinicians so far is limited, Dr. Beales said. But he said he expects these tools to improve rapidly to help clinicians and patients. On the patient’s end, they may be able to answer questions and supplement basic genetic counseling. On the physician’s end, algorithms could help triage patients and help move them along to the next steps in the care pathway for these rare diseases.
 

The whole patient

Primary care physicians will not be expected to be experts in gene therapy or solely in charge of patient safety. They will have support from industry and subspecialists leading the development of these treatments, experts agreed.

But generalists should expect to be drawn into multidisciplinary care teams, be the sounding boards for patients making decisions about gene therapy, help arrange insurance coverage, and be the recipients of late-night phone calls about side effects.

All that, while never losing sight of the child’s holistic health. In children so sick, specialists, subspecialists, and even parents tend to focus only on the rare disease. The team can “get distracted from good normal routine care,” Dr. Nelson said. But these children aren’t exempt from check-ups, vaccine regimens, or the other diseases of childhood.

“In a world where we mitigate that core disease,” he said, “we need a partner in the general pediatrics community” investing in their long-term health.

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

Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.

When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.

Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’

Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.

This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.

But the pandemic fueled the fire. While there have always been hot-button issues in medicine, the ire they arouse today is more intense than ever before. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
 

‘The people attacking are themselves victims’

The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.

The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.

Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”

In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.

“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”

Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
 

When politics and health care collide

“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”

In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.

It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.

In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.

Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”

The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.

Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
 

A turn in the pandemic

For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.

As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.

“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.

In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.

When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.

“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.

But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
 

The toll on health care professionals

By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.

“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.

At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.

A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”

Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”

All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.

The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.

“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
 

What comes next?

Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.

“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.

The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.

“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”

The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”

There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.

“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.

There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.

Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”

One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.

“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.

“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”

As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”

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

Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.

When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.

Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’

Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.

This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.

But the pandemic fueled the fire. While there have always been hot-button issues in medicine, the ire they arouse today is more intense than ever before. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
 

‘The people attacking are themselves victims’

The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.

The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.

Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”

In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.

“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”

Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
 

When politics and health care collide

“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”

In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.

It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.

In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.

Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”

The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.

Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
 

A turn in the pandemic

For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.

As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.

“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.

In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.

When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.

“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.

But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
 

The toll on health care professionals

By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.

“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.

At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.

A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”

Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”

All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.

The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.

“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
 

What comes next?

Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.

“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.

The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.

“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”

The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”

There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.

“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.

There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.

Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”

One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.

“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.

“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”

As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”

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

Like hundreds of other medical experts, Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and former Baltimore health commissioner, was an early and avid supporter of COVID vaccines and their ability to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death from SARS-CoV-2 infections.

When 51-year-old Scott Eli Harris, of Aubrey, Tex., heard of Dr. Wen’s stance in July 2021, the self-described “fifth-generation U.S. Army veteran and a sniper” sent Dr. Wen an electronic invective laden with racist language and very specific threats to shoot her.

Mr. Harris pled guilty to transmitting threats via interstate commerce last February and began serving 6 months in federal prison in the fall of 2022, but his threats wouldn’t be the last for Dr. Wen. Just 2 days after Mr. Harris was sentenced, charges were unsealed against another man in Massachusetts, who threatened that Dr. Wen would “end up in pieces” if she continued “pushing” her thoughts publicly.’

Dr. Wen has plenty of company. In an August 2022 survey of emergency doctors conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of respondents said violence against them is increasing. One in four doctors said they’re being assaulted by patients and their family and friends multiple times a week, compared with just 8% of doctors who said as much in 2018. About 64% of emergency physicians reported receiving verbal assaults and threats of violence; 40% reported being hit or slapped, and 26% were kicked.

This uptick of violence and threats against physicians didn’t come out of nowhere; violence against health care workers has been gradually increasing over the past decade. Health care providers can attest to the hostility that particular topics have sparked for years: vaccines in pediatrics, abortion in ob.gyn., and gender-affirming care in endocrinology.

But the pandemic fueled the fire. While there have always been hot-button issues in medicine, the ire they arouse today is more intense than ever before. The proliferation of misinformation (often via social media) and the politicization of public health and medicine are at the center of the problem.
 

‘The people attacking are themselves victims’

The misinformation problem first came to a head in one area of public health: vaccines. The pandemic accelerated antagonism in medicine – thanks, in part, to decades of antivaccine activism.

The antivaccine movement, which has ebbed and flowed in the United States and across the globe since the first vaccine, experienced a new wave in the early 2000s with the combination of concerns about thimerosal in vaccines and a now disproven link between autism and the MMR vaccine. But that movement grew. It picked up steam when activists gained political clout after a 2014 measles outbreak at Disneyland led California schools to tighten up policies regarding vaccinations for kids who enrolled. These stronger public school vaccination laws ran up against religious freedom arguments from antivaccine advocates.

Use of social media continues to grow, and with it, the spread of misinformation. A recent study found that Facebook “users’ social media habits doubled, and in some cases, tripled the amount of fake news they shared.”

In the face of growing confusion, health care providers and public health experts have often struggled to treat their patients – and communicate to the public – without appearing political.

“The people that are doing the attacking are in some ways themselves victims,” said Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “They’re victims of the antiscience, antihealth ecosystem coming out of Fox News, the House Freedom Caucus, the CPAC conference, coming out of contrarian intellectuals.”

Many of Dr. Hotez’s colleagues don’t want to talk about the political right as an enabler of scientific disinformation, he said, but that doesn’t change what the evidence shows. The vast majority of state and national bills opposing vaccination, gender-affirming care, comprehensive reproductive care, and other evidence-based medical care often come from Republican legislators.
 

When politics and health care collide

“We’re in an incredible status quo,” said William Schaffner, MD, the previous director of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a professor of infectious diseases and preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “You can’t get away from the politics, because you have [political] candidates espousing certain concepts that are antithetical to good public health.”

In March 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, warned that COVID vaccines are harmful to young men, prompting rebukes from federal health authorities. It later came out that Dr. Ladapo had changed some of the results of the study before issuing his warning. But long before 2023, there emerged an increasing gap in COVID deaths between red states and blue states, mirroring the vaccination rates in those states. The redder the state, the higher the death toll.

It’s not just Republican Party culture warriors; medical misinformation is also finding increasing purchase on the far left. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, both of whom have launched long-shot challenges to President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, had promoted antivaccine ideas long before the COVID pandemic. Mr. Kennedy continues to spread misinformation.

In June 2023, Joe Rogan hosted Mr. Kennedy, on his podcast. During the episode, Mr. Rogan listened uncritically as Mr. Kennedy told his millions of listeners that vaccines cause autism and that 5G causes cancer, among other fringe, often-debunked theories.

Dr. Hotez, a prominent misinformation debunker who was also part of a team that designed a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine, wrote on Twitter that the episode was “just awful.”

The backlash began almost immediately. Mr. Rogan, who has over 11 million followers on Twitter, responded with a public challenge for Dr. Hotez to debate Mr. Kennedy on Mr. Rogan’s show, with a reward of $100,000 to the charity of Dr. Hotez’s choice. More offers streamed in, including from Elon Musk, who tweeted that Dr. Hotez was “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” More supporters of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Rogan piled on.

Vaccine skeptics even showed up at Dr. Hotez’s house, filming him as he was returning from buying a Father’s Day cake and taunting him to debate Mr. Kennedy.
 

A turn in the pandemic

For a precious few weeks at the start of the pandemic, it felt as though the country was all in this together. There were arguments against closing schools and shutting down businesses, but for the most part, the nation had about 4 solid weeks of solidarity.

As masking mandates changed and the public health establishment lost the confidence of Americans, the veneer of solidarity began to chip away.

“Things were changing so rapidly during the pandemic that it was very hard for staff and patients to understand the changing guidelines, whether it was visitor constraints or masking,” said Carrie Nelson, the chief medical officer at the telehealth company AmWell, who worked as a supervisor at a large health care system in the Midwest until 2021.

In the midst of the public health crisis, former President Trump was downplaying the severity of the disease and was silencing officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as Nancy Messonier, who warned from the very beginning of the pandemic’s potential.

When the vaccines came out, the latent antivaccine movement flared up once again. And this time – unlike in decades past – the debate over vaccines had become partisan.

“Before the pandemic,” said Christopher Thomas, an emergency physician on the West Coast who requested that a pseudonym be used because of personal threats he has received, “patients wouldn’t really challenge me or throw out weird questions.” It’s not that he never encountered pushback, but the stakes felt lower, and people largely deferred to his medical expertise. “If we got a parent who had not vaccinated their child, I would totally engage back then,” Dr. Thomas said.

But the pandemic – and America’s response to it – changed the conversation. “The rhetoric ... switched from downplaying the virus to demonizing the vaccines,” Dr. Thomas said.
 

The toll on health care professionals

By the time vaccines were available, the public had begun to conflate doctors with public health experts, since both were “pushing” the vaccine.

“Most people probably don’t really know the difference between clinical medicine and public health,” said Richard Pan, MD, MPH, a pediatrician and California legislator who sponsored two bills – now laws – that strengthened state childhood vaccination requirements.

At first, it was clearly public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, MD, who were the face of measures to mitigate the virus. But as doctors became the enforcers of those measures, the line between physicians and public health officials blurred.

A lot of the anger then shifted toward doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, Dr. Pan said, “because we were, of course, the ones who would be administering the vaccines. They don’t really think of their doctor as a government person until your doctor is carrying a [government] message.”

Given the pressures and struggles of the past few years, it’s no surprise that burnout among health care professionals is high. According to an April 2023 study by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and the National Forum of State Nursing Workforce Centers, an estimated 800,000 nurses expect to leave the profession by 2027, driven first and foremost by “stress and burnout.”

All of these departures in medicine’s “great resignation” have left hospitals and health care organizations even more short staffed, thereby increasing even more the pressure and burnout on those left.

The pandemic had already badly exacerbated the already widespread problem of burnout in the medical field, which Ms. Nelson said has contributed to the tension.

“The burnout problem that we have in health care is not a good basis for the development of a good therapeutic relationship,” Ms. Nelson said. “Burnout is fraught with apathy and desensitization to human emotions. It takes away the empathy that we once had for people that we see.”
 

What comes next?

Almost exactly 3 years after the world learned about SARS-CoV-2, Biden declared an end to the coronavirus public health emergency in April 2023. Yet, Americans continue to die from COVID, and the anger that bloomed and spread has not abated.

“I think we’re in a new steady state of violence in health care settings,” Ms. Nelson said. “It’s not gone down, because people are still very distressed.” That’s evident from the high prevalence of mental health conditions, the financial strain of first the pandemic and then inflation, and the overall traumatic impact the pandemic had on people, whether they recognize it or not.

The first step to solving any problem is, as the saying goes, to admit that there is a problem.

“I think people need to start stepping out of their comfort bubbles and start to look at things that make them uncomfortable,” Dr. Thomas said, but he doesn’t see that happening any time soon. “I’ve been very let down by physicians and embarrassed by the American physician organizations.”

The medical board in his state, he said, has stood by as some doctors continue misrepresenting medical evidence. “That’s been really, really hard on me. I didn’t think that the medical boards would go so far as to look the other way for something that was this tremendously bad.”

There are others who can take the lead – if they’re willing.

“There are some things the medical societies and academic health centers can do,” Dr. Hotez said, “starting with building up a culture of physicians and health care providers feeling comfortable in the public domain.” He said the messaging when he was getting his degrees was not to engage the public and not to talk to journalists because that was “self-promotion” or “grandstanding.” But the world is different now. Health care professionals need training in public engagement and communication, he said, and the culture needs to change so that health care providers feel comfortable speaking out without feeling “the sword of Damocles over their heads” every time they talk to a reporter, Dr. Hotez said.

There may be no silver bullet to solve the big-picture trust problem in medicine and public health. No TV appearance or quote in an article can solve it. But on an individual level — through careful relationship building with patients – doctors can strengthen that trust.

Telehealth may help with that, but there’s a fine balance there, Ms. Nelson cautioned. On the one hand, with the doctor and the patient each in their own private spaces, where they feel safe and comfortable, the overall experience can be more therapeutic and less stressful. At the same time, telehealth can pile on change-management tasks that can exacerbate burnout, “so it’s a delicate thing we have to approach.”

One very thin silver lining that could emerge from the way in which patients have begun to try to take charge of their care.

“They should fully understand the reasoning behind the recommendations that physicians are making,” Ms. Nelson said. “I’d like to see us get to a happy medium where it’s a partnership. We can’t go back to the old school where the doctor knows best and you don’t ever question him.

“What we need is the partnership, and I would love to see that as the silver lining, but the anger has got to settle down in order for that kind of productive thing to happen.”

As for the big picture? There’s a limit to what even society’s “miracle workers” can do. “The biggest priority right now for the health system is to protect their staff whatever way they can and do some training in deescalation,” Ms. Nelson said. “But I don’t think health care can solve the societal issues that seem to be creating this.”

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

Choosing the right partner to add to your practice takes planning and strategic decision-making. When the match is right, the benefits can be significant: more hands to share the load of running a medical practice, and increased revenue and expanded patient population. A partner can bring in new, complementary strengths and skills. Adding a partner is also a way to prepare for the future by setting your practice up for a smooth transition if you or another partner is looking toward retirement.

But a mismatched partnership can cost you time and money, not to mention endless amount of conflict, dysfunction, and liability. Mutual trust and a long-term commitment on both sides are critical.

“Just like with marriage, it can be very difficult, traumatic, and expensive to break up with a partner,” said Clifton Straughn, MD, partner at Direct Access MD, a concierge-service model family practice in Anderson, S.C. “So, do your due diligence and take your time.” Picking the right partner is essential.
 

The basics

Before you begin the process of partnership with a physician, be sure you know what you need, the skill sets you’re looking for to complement your practice, and the personality characteristics and values that are important to you so the person you choose can check all the boxes and not just add a name to the letterhead.

“A lot of times, doctors go into this with just a general idea that they need more doctors or that they would like to be bigger or have more clout,” said Tim Boden, a certified medical practice executive with over 40 years of experience. “But you have to understand that to a certain degree, if you’re bringing somebody in who has basically an identical clinical profile to yours, you’re going to be sacrificing a bit of your lunch for a while until that person builds a name for himself or herself. A new partner’s skill set should match the need that you’re trying to fill.”

Figure out and discuss with your current partners how much it will cost to bring in a partner between their compensation and additional practice expenses. How much revenue will you expect the partner to generate? Will your practice break even the first year or the second? And how will you cover any shortfall?

It’s also essential to understand how the day-to-day operation of your practice will change after you add another partner.

• Will the new partner’s percentage of ownership be the same as that of the other partners?
• Will their ownership include a percentage of the facility, equipment, supplies, and accounts receivable?
• How will you split call and work hours?
• How will decision-making work?
• How would buyout work if a partner were to leave the practice, and is there a minimum obligation, such as a 5-year commitment?

As a team, you may also want to discuss “soft skills,” or the way you’d hope a partner would represent your practice to patients and the community.

“These can be harder to quantify,” said Dr. Straughn. “Evaluating them can take artful questions and simple observation over time.”
 

It’s a slow process

Many practices offer paths to partnership rather than bringing in a partner straight away. With this process, an incoming physician works toward that goal. If you’re going this route, discuss this during the hiring process, so that both sides are clear about the process. Rule No. 1 is to make sure that new hires understand that partnership is possible, although it’s not a given. The typical partnership track is 2-3 years, but you can set the timeline that works best for your practice.

Mr. Boden recommends at least a year for this period so as to allow you the opportunity to evaluate the new member, how they work, and how they fit with your team. The partnership track method is typically for young or fairly new physicians.

“I would avoid ever promising an ownership position to a recruit,” said Mr. Boden. “I would only show them how it can happen and what it would look like if they qualify.”
 

Consider professional help

If you want to be sure you weigh all the pros and cons of your new partner, a medical practice consultant may be the way to go. A consultant can identify many situations that you might overlook.

Some services offer a medical practice assessment to help you see where you need the most help and what skills might be best to bring to the table. They might also be able to take over some of the administrative work of a new hire if you like, so you and the other partners can focus solely on interacting with and observing the clinical abilities of a potential partner.

A health care attorney can help you build a sound agreement regarding decision-making and how the fees/costs will be divided and can put legal protections in place for everyone involved.

You’ll need a buy-sell agreement (also called a partnership or shareholder agreement) that spells out the terms and conditions, including buying into and selling out of the practice. A fair agreement respects all parties, while a poor one that offers the new partner a minority share or lessor profit may favor the practice’s current partners but could breed resentment, undermining the practice’s culture and morale.
 

Takeaway

Ideally, you’ll select someone with excellent credentials and experience with similar goals for the practice who blends well with your staff. It’s best to find someone who fits well culturally with your office and who practices medicine with a similar patient philosophy.

To that end, Mr. Boden encourages out-of-the-box questions for interviews, such as what a potential partner wants to make sure they have room for in their life, or what their ideal work and family life looks like. The more you can assess components such as emotional intelligence, =the fuller picture you’ll get.

“You’re going to be spending major hours every week with this person, and your destiny is going to be tied up with theirs to some degree,” said Mr. Boden. You can teach somebody the job, but if you don’t genuinely like and respect them and want to work with them daily, it may not be the right fit.

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

Choosing the right partner to add to your practice takes planning and strategic decision-making. When the match is right, the benefits can be significant: more hands to share the load of running a medical practice, and increased revenue and expanded patient population. A partner can bring in new, complementary strengths and skills. Adding a partner is also a way to prepare for the future by setting your practice up for a smooth transition if you or another partner is looking toward retirement.

But a mismatched partnership can cost you time and money, not to mention endless amount of conflict, dysfunction, and liability. Mutual trust and a long-term commitment on both sides are critical.

“Just like with marriage, it can be very difficult, traumatic, and expensive to break up with a partner,” said Clifton Straughn, MD, partner at Direct Access MD, a concierge-service model family practice in Anderson, S.C. “So, do your due diligence and take your time.” Picking the right partner is essential.
 

The basics

Before you begin the process of partnership with a physician, be sure you know what you need, the skill sets you’re looking for to complement your practice, and the personality characteristics and values that are important to you so the person you choose can check all the boxes and not just add a name to the letterhead.

“A lot of times, doctors go into this with just a general idea that they need more doctors or that they would like to be bigger or have more clout,” said Tim Boden, a certified medical practice executive with over 40 years of experience. “But you have to understand that to a certain degree, if you’re bringing somebody in who has basically an identical clinical profile to yours, you’re going to be sacrificing a bit of your lunch for a while until that person builds a name for himself or herself. A new partner’s skill set should match the need that you’re trying to fill.”

Figure out and discuss with your current partners how much it will cost to bring in a partner between their compensation and additional practice expenses. How much revenue will you expect the partner to generate? Will your practice break even the first year or the second? And how will you cover any shortfall?

It’s also essential to understand how the day-to-day operation of your practice will change after you add another partner.

• Will the new partner’s percentage of ownership be the same as that of the other partners?
• Will their ownership include a percentage of the facility, equipment, supplies, and accounts receivable?
• How will you split call and work hours?
• How will decision-making work?
• How would buyout work if a partner were to leave the practice, and is there a minimum obligation, such as a 5-year commitment?

As a team, you may also want to discuss “soft skills,” or the way you’d hope a partner would represent your practice to patients and the community.

“These can be harder to quantify,” said Dr. Straughn. “Evaluating them can take artful questions and simple observation over time.”
 

It’s a slow process

Many practices offer paths to partnership rather than bringing in a partner straight away. With this process, an incoming physician works toward that goal. If you’re going this route, discuss this during the hiring process, so that both sides are clear about the process. Rule No. 1 is to make sure that new hires understand that partnership is possible, although it’s not a given. The typical partnership track is 2-3 years, but you can set the timeline that works best for your practice.

Mr. Boden recommends at least a year for this period so as to allow you the opportunity to evaluate the new member, how they work, and how they fit with your team. The partnership track method is typically for young or fairly new physicians.

“I would avoid ever promising an ownership position to a recruit,” said Mr. Boden. “I would only show them how it can happen and what it would look like if they qualify.”
 

Consider professional help

If you want to be sure you weigh all the pros and cons of your new partner, a medical practice consultant may be the way to go. A consultant can identify many situations that you might overlook.

Some services offer a medical practice assessment to help you see where you need the most help and what skills might be best to bring to the table. They might also be able to take over some of the administrative work of a new hire if you like, so you and the other partners can focus solely on interacting with and observing the clinical abilities of a potential partner.

A health care attorney can help you build a sound agreement regarding decision-making and how the fees/costs will be divided and can put legal protections in place for everyone involved.

You’ll need a buy-sell agreement (also called a partnership or shareholder agreement) that spells out the terms and conditions, including buying into and selling out of the practice. A fair agreement respects all parties, while a poor one that offers the new partner a minority share or lessor profit may favor the practice’s current partners but could breed resentment, undermining the practice’s culture and morale.
 

Takeaway

Ideally, you’ll select someone with excellent credentials and experience with similar goals for the practice who blends well with your staff. It’s best to find someone who fits well culturally with your office and who practices medicine with a similar patient philosophy.

To that end, Mr. Boden encourages out-of-the-box questions for interviews, such as what a potential partner wants to make sure they have room for in their life, or what their ideal work and family life looks like. The more you can assess components such as emotional intelligence, =the fuller picture you’ll get.

“You’re going to be spending major hours every week with this person, and your destiny is going to be tied up with theirs to some degree,” said Mr. Boden. You can teach somebody the job, but if you don’t genuinely like and respect them and want to work with them daily, it may not be the right fit.

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

Choosing the right partner to add to your practice takes planning and strategic decision-making. When the match is right, the benefits can be significant: more hands to share the load of running a medical practice, and increased revenue and expanded patient population. A partner can bring in new, complementary strengths and skills. Adding a partner is also a way to prepare for the future by setting your practice up for a smooth transition if you or another partner is looking toward retirement.

But a mismatched partnership can cost you time and money, not to mention endless amount of conflict, dysfunction, and liability. Mutual trust and a long-term commitment on both sides are critical.

“Just like with marriage, it can be very difficult, traumatic, and expensive to break up with a partner,” said Clifton Straughn, MD, partner at Direct Access MD, a concierge-service model family practice in Anderson, S.C. “So, do your due diligence and take your time.” Picking the right partner is essential.
 

The basics

Before you begin the process of partnership with a physician, be sure you know what you need, the skill sets you’re looking for to complement your practice, and the personality characteristics and values that are important to you so the person you choose can check all the boxes and not just add a name to the letterhead.

“A lot of times, doctors go into this with just a general idea that they need more doctors or that they would like to be bigger or have more clout,” said Tim Boden, a certified medical practice executive with over 40 years of experience. “But you have to understand that to a certain degree, if you’re bringing somebody in who has basically an identical clinical profile to yours, you’re going to be sacrificing a bit of your lunch for a while until that person builds a name for himself or herself. A new partner’s skill set should match the need that you’re trying to fill.”

Figure out and discuss with your current partners how much it will cost to bring in a partner between their compensation and additional practice expenses. How much revenue will you expect the partner to generate? Will your practice break even the first year or the second? And how will you cover any shortfall?

It’s also essential to understand how the day-to-day operation of your practice will change after you add another partner.

• Will the new partner’s percentage of ownership be the same as that of the other partners?
• Will their ownership include a percentage of the facility, equipment, supplies, and accounts receivable?
• How will you split call and work hours?
• How will decision-making work?
• How would buyout work if a partner were to leave the practice, and is there a minimum obligation, such as a 5-year commitment?

As a team, you may also want to discuss “soft skills,” or the way you’d hope a partner would represent your practice to patients and the community.

“These can be harder to quantify,” said Dr. Straughn. “Evaluating them can take artful questions and simple observation over time.”
 

It’s a slow process

Many practices offer paths to partnership rather than bringing in a partner straight away. With this process, an incoming physician works toward that goal. If you’re going this route, discuss this during the hiring process, so that both sides are clear about the process. Rule No. 1 is to make sure that new hires understand that partnership is possible, although it’s not a given. The typical partnership track is 2-3 years, but you can set the timeline that works best for your practice.

Mr. Boden recommends at least a year for this period so as to allow you the opportunity to evaluate the new member, how they work, and how they fit with your team. The partnership track method is typically for young or fairly new physicians.

“I would avoid ever promising an ownership position to a recruit,” said Mr. Boden. “I would only show them how it can happen and what it would look like if they qualify.”
 

Consider professional help

If you want to be sure you weigh all the pros and cons of your new partner, a medical practice consultant may be the way to go. A consultant can identify many situations that you might overlook.

Some services offer a medical practice assessment to help you see where you need the most help and what skills might be best to bring to the table. They might also be able to take over some of the administrative work of a new hire if you like, so you and the other partners can focus solely on interacting with and observing the clinical abilities of a potential partner.

A health care attorney can help you build a sound agreement regarding decision-making and how the fees/costs will be divided and can put legal protections in place for everyone involved.

You’ll need a buy-sell agreement (also called a partnership or shareholder agreement) that spells out the terms and conditions, including buying into and selling out of the practice. A fair agreement respects all parties, while a poor one that offers the new partner a minority share or lessor profit may favor the practice’s current partners but could breed resentment, undermining the practice’s culture and morale.
 

Takeaway

Ideally, you’ll select someone with excellent credentials and experience with similar goals for the practice who blends well with your staff. It’s best to find someone who fits well culturally with your office and who practices medicine with a similar patient philosophy.

To that end, Mr. Boden encourages out-of-the-box questions for interviews, such as what a potential partner wants to make sure they have room for in their life, or what their ideal work and family life looks like. The more you can assess components such as emotional intelligence, =the fuller picture you’ll get.

“You’re going to be spending major hours every week with this person, and your destiny is going to be tied up with theirs to some degree,” said Mr. Boden. You can teach somebody the job, but if you don’t genuinely like and respect them and want to work with them daily, it may not be the right fit.

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

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Kathy Blackwell is not going to allow a couple of aching joints stop her from living her best life.
 

The 73-year-old resident of Simi Valley, Calif., a bedroom community about 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, organizes regular activities for her group of seniors. The 20- to 30-member-strong band of seasoned citizens, mostly women, keep active. Over the coming weeks, they plan to catch the Beach Boys at the historic Hollywood Bowl and take a cruise to Alaska. 

The busy schedule is why Ms. Blackwell intends to delay her second hip replacement surgery, opting instead for a cortisone shot in hopes of easing the pain enough to enjoy the upcoming excursions.

Not that she is shy about joint replacement. If her orthopedic surgeon offered a frequent customer punch card like the ones you get at the local coffee shop, hers would be nearly full. Ms. Blackwell’s knees and a hip have been replaced, and her other hip will be, too, once her calendar clears up.

“If you go on enough with chronic pain where there’s no relief, you get cranky,” Ms. Blackwell said.
 

More than 1 million new knees, hips

Joint replacements are getting more common, with about 790,000 total knee replacements and more than 450,000 hip replacements performed annually in the United States, according to the American College of Rheumatology.

Experts agree age is not a factor when considering candidates for joint replacement. Rafael Sierra, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he’s done hip replacements on patients as young as 12 and as old as 102. Orthopedic surgeon John Wang, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, has performed a total knee arthroscopy on a patient in their mid-90s. At 73, Ms. Blackwell is on the older side of the average age of 66 for a hip replacement.

“A lot of research and studies have shown that no matter what the age ranges, people end up doing great,” Dr. Wang said.

More importantly than age, older patients should be prepared for postsurgery therapy and treatment. For younger patients, the biggest drawback is outliving the estimated 25-year life span of a joint replacement. Complications are rare and occur in about 2% of procedures. These include infection, dislocation of the joint, and blood clots; other health issues you also have are not a factor.

Considering Ms. Blackwell’s hard time with her first knee replacement, it’s no small wonder that she ever set foot in a surgeon’s office again.

After putting it off for 7 years, Ms. Blackwell finally agreed to her doctor’s advice to replace her left knee in 2017 to relieve what she described as a “grinding,” chronic, bone-on-bone pain.

“It got to the point where there were no alternatives,” she said.

But her first orthopedic surgeon did a “lousy job,” leaving her with a gaping, festering wound that resulted in sepsis and required wound vacuum therapy to close the lesion. She eventually found another surgeon who removed and cleaned up her artificial knee before replacing the prosthesis. Luckily, the sepsis didn’t spread, and eight surgeries later, she was in the clear.

Ms. Blackwell’s second knee replacement in 2018 was a textbook surgery, as was a hip replacement in late 2019 .

“Your whole attitude changes,” she said.
 

What generalists should know

Orthopedic surgeons recommend that primary care doctors ask two things when weighing joint replacements: Have they exhausted nonsurgical treatments, and is the pain intolerable? They also advise avoiding narcotics to treat the symptoms.

The top issue to consider for a primary care doctor when weighing whether their patient may be a candidate for joint replacement is if the pain and the imaging are bad enough to warrant surgery.

“You don’t want to do it too soon,” Dr. Sierra said.

Dr. Sierra likes to tell the story of the golfer whose knee stiffens after playing 18 holes. To those patients, he recommends dialing back the activity; in this case, using a cart or playing only nine holes.

Dr. Wang agrees, asking if the pain is “lifestyle altering” and if the patient was unresponsive to nonsurgical treatments such as over-the-counter medications, anti-inflammatory medication and shots, home exercises or physical therapy, wearing a brace or sleeve, or simply changing their activity.

And no addictive pain pills to treat arthritis that can lead to other serious issues.

“This is not going to heal itself,” Dr. Wang said. “It’s not going to improve on its own. So, we don’t want to throw narcotics at it just to cover it up.”

Karen Smith, MD, has been a family doctor in rural North Carolina for more than 30 years. When she sees patients complaining about their joints, she first looks at function and pain. From there, she explores why they’re having discomfort. For example, is the problem an ergonomic issue at work or the result of carrying a lot of body weight?

“We look at those areas to determine what can be modified,” she said. “All of that’s done even before we get to having the orthopedic involvement.”

Dr. Smith said she also considers things beyond basic medicine: What is the patient’s mental status and tolerance for pain? Do they have a support system at home for post-operative care? And can they afford to miss work?

“We look at all of those factors together because that is going to determine the outcome that we’re hoping to achieve,” Dr. Smith said.
 

Great expectations

A recent study shows that older patients respond better to knee replacements than younger patients, particularly with pain relief and quality of life. The reason for this is believed to boil down to expectations. Whereas a younger person may want to return to the racquetball court and perform like they used to, older patients may just wish to walk down the hall without discomfort.

“It’s possible that these under 55-age-old patients may just take a little longer to heal to be satisfied,” Dr. Wang said. “We really can’t speak to why this is happening, but it’s possible that the younger patients are more active, and they expect more out of their knee.”

Jeevan Sall, MD, is a primary care sports medicine doctor with Providence Mission Heritage Medical Group in Laguna Niguel, Calif. He first discusses conservative management for patients struggling with arthritis in their joints. These measures include rehabilitation exercises, braces, shoe inserts, medication, and weight loss efforts. If these steps don’t improve a patient’s pain or lifestyle, surgery is on the table. Managing expectations is a significant factor.

“Is the patient mentally ready for surgery?” Dr. Sall said. “This includes what they hope to achieve with surgery as well as the risk and benefits of the procedure.”

Ms. Blackwell’s hip and knee pain came simply from a life well lived, with no marathon running or life-changing accident to speak of. She worked as a housewife raising her two children and owned an elevator company with her late husband, Robert Blackwell.

Yes, the elevator construction business has jokes.

“We have our ups and downs,” Ms. Blackwell said.

And with her new joints, so does she.

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

Kathy Blackwell is not going to allow a couple of aching joints stop her from living her best life.
 

The 73-year-old resident of Simi Valley, Calif., a bedroom community about 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, organizes regular activities for her group of seniors. The 20- to 30-member-strong band of seasoned citizens, mostly women, keep active. Over the coming weeks, they plan to catch the Beach Boys at the historic Hollywood Bowl and take a cruise to Alaska. 

The busy schedule is why Ms. Blackwell intends to delay her second hip replacement surgery, opting instead for a cortisone shot in hopes of easing the pain enough to enjoy the upcoming excursions.

Not that she is shy about joint replacement. If her orthopedic surgeon offered a frequent customer punch card like the ones you get at the local coffee shop, hers would be nearly full. Ms. Blackwell’s knees and a hip have been replaced, and her other hip will be, too, once her calendar clears up.

“If you go on enough with chronic pain where there’s no relief, you get cranky,” Ms. Blackwell said.
 

More than 1 million new knees, hips

Joint replacements are getting more common, with about 790,000 total knee replacements and more than 450,000 hip replacements performed annually in the United States, according to the American College of Rheumatology.

Experts agree age is not a factor when considering candidates for joint replacement. Rafael Sierra, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he’s done hip replacements on patients as young as 12 and as old as 102. Orthopedic surgeon John Wang, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, has performed a total knee arthroscopy on a patient in their mid-90s. At 73, Ms. Blackwell is on the older side of the average age of 66 for a hip replacement.

“A lot of research and studies have shown that no matter what the age ranges, people end up doing great,” Dr. Wang said.

More importantly than age, older patients should be prepared for postsurgery therapy and treatment. For younger patients, the biggest drawback is outliving the estimated 25-year life span of a joint replacement. Complications are rare and occur in about 2% of procedures. These include infection, dislocation of the joint, and blood clots; other health issues you also have are not a factor.

Considering Ms. Blackwell’s hard time with her first knee replacement, it’s no small wonder that she ever set foot in a surgeon’s office again.

After putting it off for 7 years, Ms. Blackwell finally agreed to her doctor’s advice to replace her left knee in 2017 to relieve what she described as a “grinding,” chronic, bone-on-bone pain.

“It got to the point where there were no alternatives,” she said.

But her first orthopedic surgeon did a “lousy job,” leaving her with a gaping, festering wound that resulted in sepsis and required wound vacuum therapy to close the lesion. She eventually found another surgeon who removed and cleaned up her artificial knee before replacing the prosthesis. Luckily, the sepsis didn’t spread, and eight surgeries later, she was in the clear.

Ms. Blackwell’s second knee replacement in 2018 was a textbook surgery, as was a hip replacement in late 2019 .

“Your whole attitude changes,” she said.
 

What generalists should know

Orthopedic surgeons recommend that primary care doctors ask two things when weighing joint replacements: Have they exhausted nonsurgical treatments, and is the pain intolerable? They also advise avoiding narcotics to treat the symptoms.

The top issue to consider for a primary care doctor when weighing whether their patient may be a candidate for joint replacement is if the pain and the imaging are bad enough to warrant surgery.

“You don’t want to do it too soon,” Dr. Sierra said.

Dr. Sierra likes to tell the story of the golfer whose knee stiffens after playing 18 holes. To those patients, he recommends dialing back the activity; in this case, using a cart or playing only nine holes.

Dr. Wang agrees, asking if the pain is “lifestyle altering” and if the patient was unresponsive to nonsurgical treatments such as over-the-counter medications, anti-inflammatory medication and shots, home exercises or physical therapy, wearing a brace or sleeve, or simply changing their activity.

And no addictive pain pills to treat arthritis that can lead to other serious issues.

“This is not going to heal itself,” Dr. Wang said. “It’s not going to improve on its own. So, we don’t want to throw narcotics at it just to cover it up.”

Karen Smith, MD, has been a family doctor in rural North Carolina for more than 30 years. When she sees patients complaining about their joints, she first looks at function and pain. From there, she explores why they’re having discomfort. For example, is the problem an ergonomic issue at work or the result of carrying a lot of body weight?

“We look at those areas to determine what can be modified,” she said. “All of that’s done even before we get to having the orthopedic involvement.”

Dr. Smith said she also considers things beyond basic medicine: What is the patient’s mental status and tolerance for pain? Do they have a support system at home for post-operative care? And can they afford to miss work?

“We look at all of those factors together because that is going to determine the outcome that we’re hoping to achieve,” Dr. Smith said.
 

Great expectations

A recent study shows that older patients respond better to knee replacements than younger patients, particularly with pain relief and quality of life. The reason for this is believed to boil down to expectations. Whereas a younger person may want to return to the racquetball court and perform like they used to, older patients may just wish to walk down the hall without discomfort.

“It’s possible that these under 55-age-old patients may just take a little longer to heal to be satisfied,” Dr. Wang said. “We really can’t speak to why this is happening, but it’s possible that the younger patients are more active, and they expect more out of their knee.”

Jeevan Sall, MD, is a primary care sports medicine doctor with Providence Mission Heritage Medical Group in Laguna Niguel, Calif. He first discusses conservative management for patients struggling with arthritis in their joints. These measures include rehabilitation exercises, braces, shoe inserts, medication, and weight loss efforts. If these steps don’t improve a patient’s pain or lifestyle, surgery is on the table. Managing expectations is a significant factor.

“Is the patient mentally ready for surgery?” Dr. Sall said. “This includes what they hope to achieve with surgery as well as the risk and benefits of the procedure.”

Ms. Blackwell’s hip and knee pain came simply from a life well lived, with no marathon running or life-changing accident to speak of. She worked as a housewife raising her two children and owned an elevator company with her late husband, Robert Blackwell.

Yes, the elevator construction business has jokes.

“We have our ups and downs,” Ms. Blackwell said.

And with her new joints, so does she.

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

Kathy Blackwell is not going to allow a couple of aching joints stop her from living her best life.
 

The 73-year-old resident of Simi Valley, Calif., a bedroom community about 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, organizes regular activities for her group of seniors. The 20- to 30-member-strong band of seasoned citizens, mostly women, keep active. Over the coming weeks, they plan to catch the Beach Boys at the historic Hollywood Bowl and take a cruise to Alaska. 

The busy schedule is why Ms. Blackwell intends to delay her second hip replacement surgery, opting instead for a cortisone shot in hopes of easing the pain enough to enjoy the upcoming excursions.

Not that she is shy about joint replacement. If her orthopedic surgeon offered a frequent customer punch card like the ones you get at the local coffee shop, hers would be nearly full. Ms. Blackwell’s knees and a hip have been replaced, and her other hip will be, too, once her calendar clears up.

“If you go on enough with chronic pain where there’s no relief, you get cranky,” Ms. Blackwell said.
 

More than 1 million new knees, hips

Joint replacements are getting more common, with about 790,000 total knee replacements and more than 450,000 hip replacements performed annually in the United States, according to the American College of Rheumatology.

Experts agree age is not a factor when considering candidates for joint replacement. Rafael Sierra, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he’s done hip replacements on patients as young as 12 and as old as 102. Orthopedic surgeon John Wang, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, has performed a total knee arthroscopy on a patient in their mid-90s. At 73, Ms. Blackwell is on the older side of the average age of 66 for a hip replacement.

“A lot of research and studies have shown that no matter what the age ranges, people end up doing great,” Dr. Wang said.

More importantly than age, older patients should be prepared for postsurgery therapy and treatment. For younger patients, the biggest drawback is outliving the estimated 25-year life span of a joint replacement. Complications are rare and occur in about 2% of procedures. These include infection, dislocation of the joint, and blood clots; other health issues you also have are not a factor.

Considering Ms. Blackwell’s hard time with her first knee replacement, it’s no small wonder that she ever set foot in a surgeon’s office again.

After putting it off for 7 years, Ms. Blackwell finally agreed to her doctor’s advice to replace her left knee in 2017 to relieve what she described as a “grinding,” chronic, bone-on-bone pain.

“It got to the point where there were no alternatives,” she said.

But her first orthopedic surgeon did a “lousy job,” leaving her with a gaping, festering wound that resulted in sepsis and required wound vacuum therapy to close the lesion. She eventually found another surgeon who removed and cleaned up her artificial knee before replacing the prosthesis. Luckily, the sepsis didn’t spread, and eight surgeries later, she was in the clear.

Ms. Blackwell’s second knee replacement in 2018 was a textbook surgery, as was a hip replacement in late 2019 .

“Your whole attitude changes,” she said.
 

What generalists should know

Orthopedic surgeons recommend that primary care doctors ask two things when weighing joint replacements: Have they exhausted nonsurgical treatments, and is the pain intolerable? They also advise avoiding narcotics to treat the symptoms.

The top issue to consider for a primary care doctor when weighing whether their patient may be a candidate for joint replacement is if the pain and the imaging are bad enough to warrant surgery.

“You don’t want to do it too soon,” Dr. Sierra said.

Dr. Sierra likes to tell the story of the golfer whose knee stiffens after playing 18 holes. To those patients, he recommends dialing back the activity; in this case, using a cart or playing only nine holes.

Dr. Wang agrees, asking if the pain is “lifestyle altering” and if the patient was unresponsive to nonsurgical treatments such as over-the-counter medications, anti-inflammatory medication and shots, home exercises or physical therapy, wearing a brace or sleeve, or simply changing their activity.

And no addictive pain pills to treat arthritis that can lead to other serious issues.

“This is not going to heal itself,” Dr. Wang said. “It’s not going to improve on its own. So, we don’t want to throw narcotics at it just to cover it up.”

Karen Smith, MD, has been a family doctor in rural North Carolina for more than 30 years. When she sees patients complaining about their joints, she first looks at function and pain. From there, she explores why they’re having discomfort. For example, is the problem an ergonomic issue at work or the result of carrying a lot of body weight?

“We look at those areas to determine what can be modified,” she said. “All of that’s done even before we get to having the orthopedic involvement.”

Dr. Smith said she also considers things beyond basic medicine: What is the patient’s mental status and tolerance for pain? Do they have a support system at home for post-operative care? And can they afford to miss work?

“We look at all of those factors together because that is going to determine the outcome that we’re hoping to achieve,” Dr. Smith said.
 

Great expectations

A recent study shows that older patients respond better to knee replacements than younger patients, particularly with pain relief and quality of life. The reason for this is believed to boil down to expectations. Whereas a younger person may want to return to the racquetball court and perform like they used to, older patients may just wish to walk down the hall without discomfort.

“It’s possible that these under 55-age-old patients may just take a little longer to heal to be satisfied,” Dr. Wang said. “We really can’t speak to why this is happening, but it’s possible that the younger patients are more active, and they expect more out of their knee.”

Jeevan Sall, MD, is a primary care sports medicine doctor with Providence Mission Heritage Medical Group in Laguna Niguel, Calif. He first discusses conservative management for patients struggling with arthritis in their joints. These measures include rehabilitation exercises, braces, shoe inserts, medication, and weight loss efforts. If these steps don’t improve a patient’s pain or lifestyle, surgery is on the table. Managing expectations is a significant factor.

“Is the patient mentally ready for surgery?” Dr. Sall said. “This includes what they hope to achieve with surgery as well as the risk and benefits of the procedure.”

Ms. Blackwell’s hip and knee pain came simply from a life well lived, with no marathon running or life-changing accident to speak of. She worked as a housewife raising her two children and owned an elevator company with her late husband, Robert Blackwell.

Yes, the elevator construction business has jokes.

“We have our ups and downs,” Ms. Blackwell said.

And with her new joints, so does she.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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