User login
Myths about smoking, diet, alcohol, and cancer persist
FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.
This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
Is cancer hereditary?
The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.
“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.
Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
Misconceptions about smoking
About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.
Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.
“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.
This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
Overweight and obesity
Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.
“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
Breastfeeding and cancer
About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.
Artificial UV rays
Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.
Daily stress
Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes
About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.
Alcohol consumption
Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.
This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
Is cancer hereditary?
The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.
“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.
Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
Misconceptions about smoking
About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.
Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.
“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.
This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
Overweight and obesity
Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.
“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
Breastfeeding and cancer
About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.
Artificial UV rays
Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.
Daily stress
Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes
About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.
Alcohol consumption
Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.
This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
Is cancer hereditary?
The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.
“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.
Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
Misconceptions about smoking
About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.
Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.
“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.
This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
Overweight and obesity
Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.
“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
Breastfeeding and cancer
About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.
Artificial UV rays
Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.
Daily stress
Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes
About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.
Alcohol consumption
Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician pleads guilty to 52 counts in opioid scheme
Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.
Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.
Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.
The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.
In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.
Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.
Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.
Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.
The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.
Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.
The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.
Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.
Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.
The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.
In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.
Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.
Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.
Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.
The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.
Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.
The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.
Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.
Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.
The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.
In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.
Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.
Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.
Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.
The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.
Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.
The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Ninety-four women allege a Utah doctor sexually assaulted them. Here’s why a judge threw out their case
This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune.
At 19 years old and about to be married, Stephanie Mateer went to an ob.gyn. within walking distance of her student housing near Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
She wanted to start using birth control, and she was looking for guidance about having sex for the first time on her 2008 wedding night.
Ms. Mateer was shocked, she said, when David Broadbent, MD, reached under her gown to grab and squeeze her breasts, started a vaginal exam without warning, then followed it with an extremely painful examination of her rectum.
She felt disgusted and violated, but doubt also crept in. She told herself she must have misinterpreted his actions, or that she should have known that he would do a rectal exam. Raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she said she was taught to defer to men in leadership.
“I viewed him as being a man in authority,” Ms. Mateer said. “He’s a doctor.”
It was years, she said, before she learned that her experience was in a sharp contrast to the conduct called for in professional standards, including that doctors use only their fingertips during a breast exam and communicate clearly what they are doing in advance, to gain the consent of their patients. Eventually, she gave her experience another name: sexual assault.
Utah judges, however, have called it health care.
And that legal distinction means Utahns like Ms. Mateer who decide to sue a health care provider for alleged sexual abuse are treated more harshly by the court system than plaintiffs who say they were harmed in other settings.
The chance to go to civil court for damages is an important option for survivors, experts say. While a criminal conviction can provide a sense of justice, winning a lawsuit can help victims pay for the therapy and additional support they need to heal after trauma.
Ms. Mateer laid out her allegations in a lawsuit that she and 93 other women filed against Dr. Broadbent last year. But they quickly learned they would be treated differently than other sexual assault survivors.
Filing their case, which alleged the Utah County doctor sexually assaulted them over the span of his 47-year career, was an empowering moment, Ms. Mateer said. But a judge threw out the lawsuit without even considering the merits, determining that because their alleged assailant is a doctor, the case must be governed by medical malpractice rules rather than those that apply to cases of sexual assault.
Under Utah’s rules of medical malpractice, claims made by victims who allege a health care worker sexually assaulted them are literally worth less than lawsuits brought by someone who was assaulted in other settings – even if a jury rules in their favor, a judge is required to limit how much money they receive. And they must meet a shorter filing deadline.
“It’s just crazy that a doctor can sexually assault women and then be protected by the white coat,” Ms. Mateer said. “It’s just a really scary precedent to be calling sexual assault ‘health care.’ ”
Because of the judge’s ruling that leaves them with a shorter window in which to file, some of Dr. Broadbent’s accusers stand to lose their chance to sue. Others were already past that deadline but had hoped to take advantage of an exception that allows plaintiffs to sue if they can prove that the person who harmed them had covered up the wrongdoing and if they discovered they had been hurt within the previous year.
As a group, the women are appealing the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. This decision will set a precedent for future sexual assault victims in Utah.
Dr. Broadbent’s attorney, Chris Nelson, declined an interview request but wrote in an email: “We believe that the allegations against Dr. Broadbent are without merit and will present our case in court. Given that this is an active legal matter, we will not be sharing any details outside the courtroom.”
States have varying legal definitions of medical malpractice, but it’s generally described as treatment that falls short of accepted standards of care. That includes mistakes, such as a surgeon leaving a piece of gauze inside a patient.
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a teenage boy was receiving health care when he was allowed to climb a steep, snow-dusted rock outcrop as part of wilderness therapy. When he broke his leg, he could only sue for medical malpractice, so the case faced shorter filing deadlines and lower monetary caps. Similarly, the court has ruled that a boy harmed by another child while in foster care was also bound by medical malpractice law.
Despite these state Supreme Court rulings, Utah legislators have so far not moved to narrow the wording of the malpractice act.
The lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent – and the questions it raises about the broadness of Utah’s medical malpractice laws – comes during a national reckoning with how sexual assault survivors are treated by the law. Legislators in several states have been rewriting laws to give sexual assault victims more time to sue their attackers, in response to the growing cultural understanding of the impact of trauma and the barriers to reporting. Even in Utah, those who were sexually abused as children now have no deadline to file suits against their abusers.
That isn’t true for sexual abuse in a medical setting, where cases must be filed within 2 years of the assault.
These higher hurdles should not exist in Utah, said state Sen. Mike K. McKell, a Utah County Republican who works as a personal injury attorney. He is trying to change state law to ensure that sexual assault lawsuits do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act, a law designed to cover negligence and poor care, not necessarily deliberate actions like an assault.
“Sexual assault, to me, is not medical care. Period,” he said. “It’s sad that we need to clarify that sexual assault is not medical care. But trying to tie sexual assault to a medical malpractice [filing deadline] – it’s just wrong.”
‘Your husband is a lucky man’
Ms. Mateer had gone to Dr. Broadbent in 2008 for a premarital exam, a uniquely Utah visit often scheduled by young women who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Leaders of the faith, which is predominant in Utah, focus on chastity when speaking to young, unmarried people about sex, and public schools have typically focused on abstinence-based sex education. So for some, these visits are the first place they learn about sexual health.
Young women who get premarital exams are typically given a birth control prescription, but the appointments can include care that’s less common for healthy women in other states – such as doctors giving them vaginal dilators to stretch their tissues before their wedding nights.
That’s what Ms. Mateer was expecting when she visited Dr. Broadbent’s office. The ob.gyn. had been practicing for decades in his Provo clinic nestled between student housing apartments across the street from Brigham Young University, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So Ms. Mateer was “just totally taken aback,” she said, by the painful examination and by Dr. Broadbent snapping off his gloves after the exam and saying, “Your husband is a lucky man.”
She repeated that remark in her legal filing, along with the doctor’s advice for her: If she bled during intercourse, “just do what the Boy Scouts do and apply pressure.”
“The whole thing was like I’m some object for my husband to enjoy and let him do whatever he wants,” Ms. Mateer said. “It was just very violating and not a great way to start my sexual relationship with my new husband, with these ideas in mind.”
Ms. Mateer thought back to that visit over the years, particularly when she went to other ob.gyns. for health care. Her subsequent doctors, she said, never performed a rectal exam and always explained to her what they were doing and how it would feel, and asked for her consent.
She thought about Dr. Broadbent again in 2017, as the #MeToo movement gained momentum, and looked him up online. Ms. Mateer found reviews from other women who described Dr. Broadbent doing rough examinations without warning that left them feeling the same way she had years before.
Then in December 2021, she spoke out on “Mormon Stories,” a podcast where people who have left or have questioned their Latter-day Saint faith share their life stories. In the episode, she described the painful way he examined her, how it left her feeling traumatized, and her discovery of the reviews that echoed her experience.
“He’s on University Avenue, in Provo, giving these exams to who knows how many naive Mormon 18-year-old, 19-year-old girls who are getting married. … They are naive and they don’t know what to expect,” she said on the podcast. “His name is Dr. David Broadbent.”
After the podcast aired, Ms. Mateer was flooded with messages from women who heard the episode and reached out to tell her that Dr. Broadbent had harmed them, too.
Ms. Mateer and three other women decided to sue the ob.gyn., and in the following weeks and months, 90 additional women joined the lawsuit they filed in Provo. Many of the women allege Dr. Broadbent inappropriately touched their breasts, vaginas and rectums, hurting them, without warning or explanation. Some said he used his bare hand – instead of using a speculum or gloves – during exams. One alleged that she saw he had an erection while he was touching her.
Dr. Broadbent’s actions were not medically necessary, the women allege, and were instead “performed for no other reason than his own sexual gratification.”
The lawsuit also named as defendants two hospitals where Dr. Broadbent had delivered babies and where some of the women allege they were assaulted. The suit accused hospital administrators of knowing about Dr. Broadbent’s inappropriate behavior and doing nothing about it.
After he was sued, the ob.gyn. quickly lost his privileges at the hospitals where he worked. Dr. Broadbent, now 75, has also voluntarily put his medical license in Utah on hold while police investigate 29 reports of sexual assault made against him.
Prosecutors are still considering whether to criminally prosecute Dr. Broadbent. Provo police forwarded more than a dozen reports to the Utah County attorney’s office in November, which are still being reviewed by a local prosecutor.
A spokesperson for Intermountain Health, the nonprofit health system that owns Utah Valley Hospital, where some of the women in the suit were treated, did not respond to specific questions. The spokesperson emphasized in an email that Dr. Broadbent was an “independent physician” who was not employed by Utah Valley Hospital, adding that most of the alleged incidents took place at Dr. Broadbent’s medical office.
A representative for MountainStar Healthcare, another hospital chain named as a defendant, denied knowledge of any allegations of inappropriate conduct reported to its hospital and also emphasized that Dr. Broadbent worked independently, not as an employee.
“Our position since this lawsuit was filed has been that we were inappropriately named in this suit,” said Brittany Glas, the communications director for MountainStar.
Debating whether sexual abuse is health care
For the women who sued Dr. Broadbent, their case boiled down to a key question: Were the sexual assaults they say they experienced part of their health care? There was a lot hanging on the answer.
If their case was considered medical malpractice, they would be limited in how much money they could receive in damages for their pain and suffering. If a jury awarded them millions of dollars, a judge would be required by law to cut that down to $450,000. There’s no cap on these monetary awards for victims sexually assaulted in other settings.
They would also be required to go before a panel, which includes a doctor, a lawyer and a community member, that decides whether their claims have merit. This step, aimed at resolving disputes out of court, does not block anyone from suing afterward. But it does add cost and delay, and for sexual assault victims who’ve gone through this step, it has been another time they were required to describe their experiences and hope they were believed.
The shorter, 2-year filing deadline for medical malpractice cases can also be a particular challenge for those who have been sexually abused because research shows that it’s common to delay reporting such assaults.
Nationwide, these kinds of malpractice reforms were adopted in the 1970s amid concerns – largely driven by insurance companies – that the cost of health care was rising because of frivolous lawsuits and “runaway juries” doling out multimillion-dollar payouts.
Restricting the size of malpractice awards and imposing other limits, many argued, were effective ways to balance compensating injured patients with protecting everyone’s access to health care.
State laws are generally silent on whether sexual assault lawsuits should be covered by malpractice laws, leaving courts to grapple with that question and leading to different conclusions across the country. The Tribune and ProPublica identified at least six cases in which state appellate judges sharply distinguished between assault and health care in considering whether malpractice laws should apply to sexual assault–related cases.
An appellate court in Wisconsin, for example, ruled in 1993 that a physician having an erection and groping a patient was a purposeful harm, not medical malpractice.
Florida’s law is similar to Utah’s, defining allegations “arising” out of medical care as malpractice. While an earlier ruling did treat sexual assault in a health care setting as medical malpractice, appellate rulings in the last decade have moved away from that interpretation. In 2005, an appellate court affirmed a lower-court ruling that when a dentist “stopped providing dental treatment to the victim and began sexually assaulting her, his professional services ended.”
Similarly, a federal judge in Iowa in 1995 weighed in on the meaning of “arising” out of health care: “Rape is not patient care activity,” he wrote.
But Utah’s malpractice law is so broad that judges have been interpreting it as covering any act performed by a health care provider during medical care. The law was passed in 1976 and is popular with doctors and other health care providers, who have lobbied to keep it in place – and who use it to get lawsuits dismissed.
One precedent-setting case in Utah shows the law’s power to safeguard health care providers and was an important test of how Utah defines medical malpractice. Jacob Scott sued WinGate Wilderness Therapy after the teen broke his leg in 2015 when a hiking guide from the center allowed him to climb up and down a steep outcrop in Utah’s red rock desert.
His parents are both lawyers, and after they found that Utah had a 4-year deadline for filing a personal injury lawsuit, court records said, they decided to prioritize “getting Jacob better” for the first 2 years after the accident. But when Mr. Scott’s suit was filed, WinGate argued it was too late – based on the shorter, 2-year deadline for medical malpractice claims.
Mr. Scott’s attorneys scoffed. “Interacting with nature,” his attorneys argued, “is not health care even under the broadest interpretation of … the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.”
A judge disagreed and threw out Mr. Scott’s case. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling in 2021.
“We agree with WinGate,” the justices wrote, “that it was acting as a ‘health care provider’ and providing ‘health care’ when Jacob was hiking and rock climbing.”
Last summer, the women who had sued Dr. Broadbent and the two hospitals watched online as lawyers debated whether the abuse they allegedly suffered was health care.
At the hearing, attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued that the women should have pursued a medical malpractice case, which required them to first notify Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals that they wanted to sue. They also argued to Judge Robert Lunnen that the case couldn’t move forward because the women hadn’t gone before a prelitigation panel.
Attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued, one after the other, that the painful and traumatic exams the women described arose out of health care treatments.
“Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true – as we must for purposes of this proceeding – we have to assume that [Broadbent] did something that was medically unnecessary, medically inappropriate,” argued David Jordan, a lawyer for Intermountain Health.
“But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an act performed to a patient, during the patient’s treatment,” he said. “Because that’s what the patient is doing in the doctor’s office. They’re there for treatment.”
The attorney team for the women pushed back. Terry Rooney argued that if Dr. Broadbent’s actions fell under medical malpractice laws, many women would be knocked out of the case because of the age of their claims, and those who remained would be limited in the amount of money in damages they could receive.
“That’s really what this is about,” he argued. “And so it’s troubling – quite frankly it’s shocking to me – that we’re debating heavily the question of whether sexual abuse is health care.”
The judge mulled the issue for months. Judge Lunnen wrote in a September ruling that if the allegations were true, Dr. Broadbent’s treatment of his patients was “insensitive, disrespectful and degrading.”
But Utah law is clear, he said. Malpractice law covers any act or treatment performed by any health care provider during the patient’s medical care. The women had all been seeking health care, Judge Lunnen wrote, and Dr. Broadbent was providing that when the alleged assaults happened.
Their lawsuit was dismissed.
‘I felt defeated’
Brooke, another plaintiff who alleges Dr. Broadbent groped her, remembers feeling sick on the June day she watched the attorneys arguing. She asked to be identified by only her first name for this story.
She alleges Dr. Broadbent violated her in December 2008 while she was hospitalized after experiencing complications with her first pregnancy.
The nearest hospital to her rural town didn’t have a special unit to take care of premature babies, and her doctors feared she might need to deliver her son 6 weeks early. So Brooke had been rushed by ambulance over a mountain pass in a snowstorm to Utah Valley Hospital.
Brooke and her husband were terrified, she said, when they arrived at the Provo hospital. Dr. Broadbent happened to be the doctor on call. With Brooke’s husband and brother-in-law in the room, Dr. Broadbent examined her late that evening, she said, listening to her chest with a stethoscope.
The doctor then suddenly grabbed her breasts, she recalled – his movements causing her hospital gown to fall to expose her chest. She recounted this experience in her lawsuit, saying it was nothing like the breast exams she has had since.
“It was really traumatizing,” she said. “I was mortified. My husband and brother-in-law – we just didn’t say anything about it because it was so uncomfortable.”
Brooke voiced concerns to the nurse manager, and she was assigned a new doctor.
She gave birth to a healthy baby a little more than a month later, at the hospital near her home.
Hearing the judge’s ruling 14 years later, Brooke felt the decision revealed how Utah’s laws are broken.
“I was frustrated,” she said, “and I felt defeated. … I thought justice is not on our side with this.”
If the Utah Supreme Court rules that these alleged sexual assaults should legally be considered health care, the women will likely refile their claims as a medical malpractice lawsuit, said their attorney, Adam Sorensen. But it would be a challenge to keep all 94 women in the case, he said, due to the shorter filing window. Only two women in the lawsuit allege that they were harmed within the last 2 years.
The legal team for the women would have to convince a judge that their claims should still be allowed because they only recently discovered they were harmed. But based on previous rulings, Mr. Sorensen believes the women will have a better chance to win that argument if the civil suit remained a sexual assault case.
Regardless of what happens in their legal case, the decision by Brooke and the other women to come forward could help change state law for victims who come after them.
Recently, Mr. McKell, the state senator, introduced legislation to clarify that civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault by a health care worker do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act.
“I don’t think it’s a close call. Sexual assault is not medical care,” he said. “I know we’ve got some bizarre rulings that have come down through our courts in Utah.”
Both an association of Utah trial lawyers and the Utah Medical Association, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s physicians, support this reform.
“We support the fact that sexual assault should not be part of health care medical malpractice,” said Michelle McOmber, the CEO for the Utah Medical Association. “Sexual assault should be sexual assault, regardless of where it happens or who’s doing it. Sexual assault should be in that category, which is separate from actual health care. Because it’s not health care.”
MountainStar doesn’t have a position on the bill, Ms. Glas said. “If the laws were to change via new legislation and/or interpretation by the courts, we would abide by and comply with those new laws.”
But lawmakers are running out of time. With only a short time left in Utah’s legislative session, state senate and house leaders have so far prioritized passing new laws banning gender-affirming health care for transgender youths and creating a controversial school voucher program that will provide taxpayer funds for students to attend private school.
Utah lawmakers were also expected to consider a dramatic change for other sexual assault victims: a bill that would remove filing deadlines for civil lawsuits brought by people abused as adults. But that bill stalled before it could be debated.
Brooke had been eager to share her story, she said, in hopes it would help the first four women who’d come forward bolster their lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent. She later joined the case as a plaintiff. She read in their lawsuit about one woman who complained about him to the same hospital 7 years before she did, and about another woman who said Dr. Broadbent similarly molested her 2 days after Brooke had expressed her own concern.
“That bothered me so much,” she said. “It didn’t have to happen to all these women.”
Brooke doubts she’ll get vindication in a courtroom. Justice for her, she suspects, won’t come in the form of a legal ruling or a settlement against the doctor she says hurt her years ago.
Instead, she said, “maybe justice looks like changing the laws for future women.”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune.
At 19 years old and about to be married, Stephanie Mateer went to an ob.gyn. within walking distance of her student housing near Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
She wanted to start using birth control, and she was looking for guidance about having sex for the first time on her 2008 wedding night.
Ms. Mateer was shocked, she said, when David Broadbent, MD, reached under her gown to grab and squeeze her breasts, started a vaginal exam without warning, then followed it with an extremely painful examination of her rectum.
She felt disgusted and violated, but doubt also crept in. She told herself she must have misinterpreted his actions, or that she should have known that he would do a rectal exam. Raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she said she was taught to defer to men in leadership.
“I viewed him as being a man in authority,” Ms. Mateer said. “He’s a doctor.”
It was years, she said, before she learned that her experience was in a sharp contrast to the conduct called for in professional standards, including that doctors use only their fingertips during a breast exam and communicate clearly what they are doing in advance, to gain the consent of their patients. Eventually, she gave her experience another name: sexual assault.
Utah judges, however, have called it health care.
And that legal distinction means Utahns like Ms. Mateer who decide to sue a health care provider for alleged sexual abuse are treated more harshly by the court system than plaintiffs who say they were harmed in other settings.
The chance to go to civil court for damages is an important option for survivors, experts say. While a criminal conviction can provide a sense of justice, winning a lawsuit can help victims pay for the therapy and additional support they need to heal after trauma.
Ms. Mateer laid out her allegations in a lawsuit that she and 93 other women filed against Dr. Broadbent last year. But they quickly learned they would be treated differently than other sexual assault survivors.
Filing their case, which alleged the Utah County doctor sexually assaulted them over the span of his 47-year career, was an empowering moment, Ms. Mateer said. But a judge threw out the lawsuit without even considering the merits, determining that because their alleged assailant is a doctor, the case must be governed by medical malpractice rules rather than those that apply to cases of sexual assault.
Under Utah’s rules of medical malpractice, claims made by victims who allege a health care worker sexually assaulted them are literally worth less than lawsuits brought by someone who was assaulted in other settings – even if a jury rules in their favor, a judge is required to limit how much money they receive. And they must meet a shorter filing deadline.
“It’s just crazy that a doctor can sexually assault women and then be protected by the white coat,” Ms. Mateer said. “It’s just a really scary precedent to be calling sexual assault ‘health care.’ ”
Because of the judge’s ruling that leaves them with a shorter window in which to file, some of Dr. Broadbent’s accusers stand to lose their chance to sue. Others were already past that deadline but had hoped to take advantage of an exception that allows plaintiffs to sue if they can prove that the person who harmed them had covered up the wrongdoing and if they discovered they had been hurt within the previous year.
As a group, the women are appealing the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. This decision will set a precedent for future sexual assault victims in Utah.
Dr. Broadbent’s attorney, Chris Nelson, declined an interview request but wrote in an email: “We believe that the allegations against Dr. Broadbent are without merit and will present our case in court. Given that this is an active legal matter, we will not be sharing any details outside the courtroom.”
States have varying legal definitions of medical malpractice, but it’s generally described as treatment that falls short of accepted standards of care. That includes mistakes, such as a surgeon leaving a piece of gauze inside a patient.
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a teenage boy was receiving health care when he was allowed to climb a steep, snow-dusted rock outcrop as part of wilderness therapy. When he broke his leg, he could only sue for medical malpractice, so the case faced shorter filing deadlines and lower monetary caps. Similarly, the court has ruled that a boy harmed by another child while in foster care was also bound by medical malpractice law.
Despite these state Supreme Court rulings, Utah legislators have so far not moved to narrow the wording of the malpractice act.
The lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent – and the questions it raises about the broadness of Utah’s medical malpractice laws – comes during a national reckoning with how sexual assault survivors are treated by the law. Legislators in several states have been rewriting laws to give sexual assault victims more time to sue their attackers, in response to the growing cultural understanding of the impact of trauma and the barriers to reporting. Even in Utah, those who were sexually abused as children now have no deadline to file suits against their abusers.
That isn’t true for sexual abuse in a medical setting, where cases must be filed within 2 years of the assault.
These higher hurdles should not exist in Utah, said state Sen. Mike K. McKell, a Utah County Republican who works as a personal injury attorney. He is trying to change state law to ensure that sexual assault lawsuits do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act, a law designed to cover negligence and poor care, not necessarily deliberate actions like an assault.
“Sexual assault, to me, is not medical care. Period,” he said. “It’s sad that we need to clarify that sexual assault is not medical care. But trying to tie sexual assault to a medical malpractice [filing deadline] – it’s just wrong.”
‘Your husband is a lucky man’
Ms. Mateer had gone to Dr. Broadbent in 2008 for a premarital exam, a uniquely Utah visit often scheduled by young women who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Leaders of the faith, which is predominant in Utah, focus on chastity when speaking to young, unmarried people about sex, and public schools have typically focused on abstinence-based sex education. So for some, these visits are the first place they learn about sexual health.
Young women who get premarital exams are typically given a birth control prescription, but the appointments can include care that’s less common for healthy women in other states – such as doctors giving them vaginal dilators to stretch their tissues before their wedding nights.
That’s what Ms. Mateer was expecting when she visited Dr. Broadbent’s office. The ob.gyn. had been practicing for decades in his Provo clinic nestled between student housing apartments across the street from Brigham Young University, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So Ms. Mateer was “just totally taken aback,” she said, by the painful examination and by Dr. Broadbent snapping off his gloves after the exam and saying, “Your husband is a lucky man.”
She repeated that remark in her legal filing, along with the doctor’s advice for her: If she bled during intercourse, “just do what the Boy Scouts do and apply pressure.”
“The whole thing was like I’m some object for my husband to enjoy and let him do whatever he wants,” Ms. Mateer said. “It was just very violating and not a great way to start my sexual relationship with my new husband, with these ideas in mind.”
Ms. Mateer thought back to that visit over the years, particularly when she went to other ob.gyns. for health care. Her subsequent doctors, she said, never performed a rectal exam and always explained to her what they were doing and how it would feel, and asked for her consent.
She thought about Dr. Broadbent again in 2017, as the #MeToo movement gained momentum, and looked him up online. Ms. Mateer found reviews from other women who described Dr. Broadbent doing rough examinations without warning that left them feeling the same way she had years before.
Then in December 2021, she spoke out on “Mormon Stories,” a podcast where people who have left or have questioned their Latter-day Saint faith share their life stories. In the episode, she described the painful way he examined her, how it left her feeling traumatized, and her discovery of the reviews that echoed her experience.
“He’s on University Avenue, in Provo, giving these exams to who knows how many naive Mormon 18-year-old, 19-year-old girls who are getting married. … They are naive and they don’t know what to expect,” she said on the podcast. “His name is Dr. David Broadbent.”
After the podcast aired, Ms. Mateer was flooded with messages from women who heard the episode and reached out to tell her that Dr. Broadbent had harmed them, too.
Ms. Mateer and three other women decided to sue the ob.gyn., and in the following weeks and months, 90 additional women joined the lawsuit they filed in Provo. Many of the women allege Dr. Broadbent inappropriately touched their breasts, vaginas and rectums, hurting them, without warning or explanation. Some said he used his bare hand – instead of using a speculum or gloves – during exams. One alleged that she saw he had an erection while he was touching her.
Dr. Broadbent’s actions were not medically necessary, the women allege, and were instead “performed for no other reason than his own sexual gratification.”
The lawsuit also named as defendants two hospitals where Dr. Broadbent had delivered babies and where some of the women allege they were assaulted. The suit accused hospital administrators of knowing about Dr. Broadbent’s inappropriate behavior and doing nothing about it.
After he was sued, the ob.gyn. quickly lost his privileges at the hospitals where he worked. Dr. Broadbent, now 75, has also voluntarily put his medical license in Utah on hold while police investigate 29 reports of sexual assault made against him.
Prosecutors are still considering whether to criminally prosecute Dr. Broadbent. Provo police forwarded more than a dozen reports to the Utah County attorney’s office in November, which are still being reviewed by a local prosecutor.
A spokesperson for Intermountain Health, the nonprofit health system that owns Utah Valley Hospital, where some of the women in the suit were treated, did not respond to specific questions. The spokesperson emphasized in an email that Dr. Broadbent was an “independent physician” who was not employed by Utah Valley Hospital, adding that most of the alleged incidents took place at Dr. Broadbent’s medical office.
A representative for MountainStar Healthcare, another hospital chain named as a defendant, denied knowledge of any allegations of inappropriate conduct reported to its hospital and also emphasized that Dr. Broadbent worked independently, not as an employee.
“Our position since this lawsuit was filed has been that we were inappropriately named in this suit,” said Brittany Glas, the communications director for MountainStar.
Debating whether sexual abuse is health care
For the women who sued Dr. Broadbent, their case boiled down to a key question: Were the sexual assaults they say they experienced part of their health care? There was a lot hanging on the answer.
If their case was considered medical malpractice, they would be limited in how much money they could receive in damages for their pain and suffering. If a jury awarded them millions of dollars, a judge would be required by law to cut that down to $450,000. There’s no cap on these monetary awards for victims sexually assaulted in other settings.
They would also be required to go before a panel, which includes a doctor, a lawyer and a community member, that decides whether their claims have merit. This step, aimed at resolving disputes out of court, does not block anyone from suing afterward. But it does add cost and delay, and for sexual assault victims who’ve gone through this step, it has been another time they were required to describe their experiences and hope they were believed.
The shorter, 2-year filing deadline for medical malpractice cases can also be a particular challenge for those who have been sexually abused because research shows that it’s common to delay reporting such assaults.
Nationwide, these kinds of malpractice reforms were adopted in the 1970s amid concerns – largely driven by insurance companies – that the cost of health care was rising because of frivolous lawsuits and “runaway juries” doling out multimillion-dollar payouts.
Restricting the size of malpractice awards and imposing other limits, many argued, were effective ways to balance compensating injured patients with protecting everyone’s access to health care.
State laws are generally silent on whether sexual assault lawsuits should be covered by malpractice laws, leaving courts to grapple with that question and leading to different conclusions across the country. The Tribune and ProPublica identified at least six cases in which state appellate judges sharply distinguished between assault and health care in considering whether malpractice laws should apply to sexual assault–related cases.
An appellate court in Wisconsin, for example, ruled in 1993 that a physician having an erection and groping a patient was a purposeful harm, not medical malpractice.
Florida’s law is similar to Utah’s, defining allegations “arising” out of medical care as malpractice. While an earlier ruling did treat sexual assault in a health care setting as medical malpractice, appellate rulings in the last decade have moved away from that interpretation. In 2005, an appellate court affirmed a lower-court ruling that when a dentist “stopped providing dental treatment to the victim and began sexually assaulting her, his professional services ended.”
Similarly, a federal judge in Iowa in 1995 weighed in on the meaning of “arising” out of health care: “Rape is not patient care activity,” he wrote.
But Utah’s malpractice law is so broad that judges have been interpreting it as covering any act performed by a health care provider during medical care. The law was passed in 1976 and is popular with doctors and other health care providers, who have lobbied to keep it in place – and who use it to get lawsuits dismissed.
One precedent-setting case in Utah shows the law’s power to safeguard health care providers and was an important test of how Utah defines medical malpractice. Jacob Scott sued WinGate Wilderness Therapy after the teen broke his leg in 2015 when a hiking guide from the center allowed him to climb up and down a steep outcrop in Utah’s red rock desert.
His parents are both lawyers, and after they found that Utah had a 4-year deadline for filing a personal injury lawsuit, court records said, they decided to prioritize “getting Jacob better” for the first 2 years after the accident. But when Mr. Scott’s suit was filed, WinGate argued it was too late – based on the shorter, 2-year deadline for medical malpractice claims.
Mr. Scott’s attorneys scoffed. “Interacting with nature,” his attorneys argued, “is not health care even under the broadest interpretation of … the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.”
A judge disagreed and threw out Mr. Scott’s case. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling in 2021.
“We agree with WinGate,” the justices wrote, “that it was acting as a ‘health care provider’ and providing ‘health care’ when Jacob was hiking and rock climbing.”
Last summer, the women who had sued Dr. Broadbent and the two hospitals watched online as lawyers debated whether the abuse they allegedly suffered was health care.
At the hearing, attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued that the women should have pursued a medical malpractice case, which required them to first notify Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals that they wanted to sue. They also argued to Judge Robert Lunnen that the case couldn’t move forward because the women hadn’t gone before a prelitigation panel.
Attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued, one after the other, that the painful and traumatic exams the women described arose out of health care treatments.
“Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true – as we must for purposes of this proceeding – we have to assume that [Broadbent] did something that was medically unnecessary, medically inappropriate,” argued David Jordan, a lawyer for Intermountain Health.
“But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an act performed to a patient, during the patient’s treatment,” he said. “Because that’s what the patient is doing in the doctor’s office. They’re there for treatment.”
The attorney team for the women pushed back. Terry Rooney argued that if Dr. Broadbent’s actions fell under medical malpractice laws, many women would be knocked out of the case because of the age of their claims, and those who remained would be limited in the amount of money in damages they could receive.
“That’s really what this is about,” he argued. “And so it’s troubling – quite frankly it’s shocking to me – that we’re debating heavily the question of whether sexual abuse is health care.”
The judge mulled the issue for months. Judge Lunnen wrote in a September ruling that if the allegations were true, Dr. Broadbent’s treatment of his patients was “insensitive, disrespectful and degrading.”
But Utah law is clear, he said. Malpractice law covers any act or treatment performed by any health care provider during the patient’s medical care. The women had all been seeking health care, Judge Lunnen wrote, and Dr. Broadbent was providing that when the alleged assaults happened.
Their lawsuit was dismissed.
‘I felt defeated’
Brooke, another plaintiff who alleges Dr. Broadbent groped her, remembers feeling sick on the June day she watched the attorneys arguing. She asked to be identified by only her first name for this story.
She alleges Dr. Broadbent violated her in December 2008 while she was hospitalized after experiencing complications with her first pregnancy.
The nearest hospital to her rural town didn’t have a special unit to take care of premature babies, and her doctors feared she might need to deliver her son 6 weeks early. So Brooke had been rushed by ambulance over a mountain pass in a snowstorm to Utah Valley Hospital.
Brooke and her husband were terrified, she said, when they arrived at the Provo hospital. Dr. Broadbent happened to be the doctor on call. With Brooke’s husband and brother-in-law in the room, Dr. Broadbent examined her late that evening, she said, listening to her chest with a stethoscope.
The doctor then suddenly grabbed her breasts, she recalled – his movements causing her hospital gown to fall to expose her chest. She recounted this experience in her lawsuit, saying it was nothing like the breast exams she has had since.
“It was really traumatizing,” she said. “I was mortified. My husband and brother-in-law – we just didn’t say anything about it because it was so uncomfortable.”
Brooke voiced concerns to the nurse manager, and she was assigned a new doctor.
She gave birth to a healthy baby a little more than a month later, at the hospital near her home.
Hearing the judge’s ruling 14 years later, Brooke felt the decision revealed how Utah’s laws are broken.
“I was frustrated,” she said, “and I felt defeated. … I thought justice is not on our side with this.”
If the Utah Supreme Court rules that these alleged sexual assaults should legally be considered health care, the women will likely refile their claims as a medical malpractice lawsuit, said their attorney, Adam Sorensen. But it would be a challenge to keep all 94 women in the case, he said, due to the shorter filing window. Only two women in the lawsuit allege that they were harmed within the last 2 years.
The legal team for the women would have to convince a judge that their claims should still be allowed because they only recently discovered they were harmed. But based on previous rulings, Mr. Sorensen believes the women will have a better chance to win that argument if the civil suit remained a sexual assault case.
Regardless of what happens in their legal case, the decision by Brooke and the other women to come forward could help change state law for victims who come after them.
Recently, Mr. McKell, the state senator, introduced legislation to clarify that civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault by a health care worker do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act.
“I don’t think it’s a close call. Sexual assault is not medical care,” he said. “I know we’ve got some bizarre rulings that have come down through our courts in Utah.”
Both an association of Utah trial lawyers and the Utah Medical Association, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s physicians, support this reform.
“We support the fact that sexual assault should not be part of health care medical malpractice,” said Michelle McOmber, the CEO for the Utah Medical Association. “Sexual assault should be sexual assault, regardless of where it happens or who’s doing it. Sexual assault should be in that category, which is separate from actual health care. Because it’s not health care.”
MountainStar doesn’t have a position on the bill, Ms. Glas said. “If the laws were to change via new legislation and/or interpretation by the courts, we would abide by and comply with those new laws.”
But lawmakers are running out of time. With only a short time left in Utah’s legislative session, state senate and house leaders have so far prioritized passing new laws banning gender-affirming health care for transgender youths and creating a controversial school voucher program that will provide taxpayer funds for students to attend private school.
Utah lawmakers were also expected to consider a dramatic change for other sexual assault victims: a bill that would remove filing deadlines for civil lawsuits brought by people abused as adults. But that bill stalled before it could be debated.
Brooke had been eager to share her story, she said, in hopes it would help the first four women who’d come forward bolster their lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent. She later joined the case as a plaintiff. She read in their lawsuit about one woman who complained about him to the same hospital 7 years before she did, and about another woman who said Dr. Broadbent similarly molested her 2 days after Brooke had expressed her own concern.
“That bothered me so much,” she said. “It didn’t have to happen to all these women.”
Brooke doubts she’ll get vindication in a courtroom. Justice for her, she suspects, won’t come in the form of a legal ruling or a settlement against the doctor she says hurt her years ago.
Instead, she said, “maybe justice looks like changing the laws for future women.”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune.
At 19 years old and about to be married, Stephanie Mateer went to an ob.gyn. within walking distance of her student housing near Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
She wanted to start using birth control, and she was looking for guidance about having sex for the first time on her 2008 wedding night.
Ms. Mateer was shocked, she said, when David Broadbent, MD, reached under her gown to grab and squeeze her breasts, started a vaginal exam without warning, then followed it with an extremely painful examination of her rectum.
She felt disgusted and violated, but doubt also crept in. She told herself she must have misinterpreted his actions, or that she should have known that he would do a rectal exam. Raised as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she said she was taught to defer to men in leadership.
“I viewed him as being a man in authority,” Ms. Mateer said. “He’s a doctor.”
It was years, she said, before she learned that her experience was in a sharp contrast to the conduct called for in professional standards, including that doctors use only their fingertips during a breast exam and communicate clearly what they are doing in advance, to gain the consent of their patients. Eventually, she gave her experience another name: sexual assault.
Utah judges, however, have called it health care.
And that legal distinction means Utahns like Ms. Mateer who decide to sue a health care provider for alleged sexual abuse are treated more harshly by the court system than plaintiffs who say they were harmed in other settings.
The chance to go to civil court for damages is an important option for survivors, experts say. While a criminal conviction can provide a sense of justice, winning a lawsuit can help victims pay for the therapy and additional support they need to heal after trauma.
Ms. Mateer laid out her allegations in a lawsuit that she and 93 other women filed against Dr. Broadbent last year. But they quickly learned they would be treated differently than other sexual assault survivors.
Filing their case, which alleged the Utah County doctor sexually assaulted them over the span of his 47-year career, was an empowering moment, Ms. Mateer said. But a judge threw out the lawsuit without even considering the merits, determining that because their alleged assailant is a doctor, the case must be governed by medical malpractice rules rather than those that apply to cases of sexual assault.
Under Utah’s rules of medical malpractice, claims made by victims who allege a health care worker sexually assaulted them are literally worth less than lawsuits brought by someone who was assaulted in other settings – even if a jury rules in their favor, a judge is required to limit how much money they receive. And they must meet a shorter filing deadline.
“It’s just crazy that a doctor can sexually assault women and then be protected by the white coat,” Ms. Mateer said. “It’s just a really scary precedent to be calling sexual assault ‘health care.’ ”
Because of the judge’s ruling that leaves them with a shorter window in which to file, some of Dr. Broadbent’s accusers stand to lose their chance to sue. Others were already past that deadline but had hoped to take advantage of an exception that allows plaintiffs to sue if they can prove that the person who harmed them had covered up the wrongdoing and if they discovered they had been hurt within the previous year.
As a group, the women are appealing the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. This decision will set a precedent for future sexual assault victims in Utah.
Dr. Broadbent’s attorney, Chris Nelson, declined an interview request but wrote in an email: “We believe that the allegations against Dr. Broadbent are without merit and will present our case in court. Given that this is an active legal matter, we will not be sharing any details outside the courtroom.”
States have varying legal definitions of medical malpractice, but it’s generally described as treatment that falls short of accepted standards of care. That includes mistakes, such as a surgeon leaving a piece of gauze inside a patient.
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a teenage boy was receiving health care when he was allowed to climb a steep, snow-dusted rock outcrop as part of wilderness therapy. When he broke his leg, he could only sue for medical malpractice, so the case faced shorter filing deadlines and lower monetary caps. Similarly, the court has ruled that a boy harmed by another child while in foster care was also bound by medical malpractice law.
Despite these state Supreme Court rulings, Utah legislators have so far not moved to narrow the wording of the malpractice act.
The lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent – and the questions it raises about the broadness of Utah’s medical malpractice laws – comes during a national reckoning with how sexual assault survivors are treated by the law. Legislators in several states have been rewriting laws to give sexual assault victims more time to sue their attackers, in response to the growing cultural understanding of the impact of trauma and the barriers to reporting. Even in Utah, those who were sexually abused as children now have no deadline to file suits against their abusers.
That isn’t true for sexual abuse in a medical setting, where cases must be filed within 2 years of the assault.
These higher hurdles should not exist in Utah, said state Sen. Mike K. McKell, a Utah County Republican who works as a personal injury attorney. He is trying to change state law to ensure that sexual assault lawsuits do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act, a law designed to cover negligence and poor care, not necessarily deliberate actions like an assault.
“Sexual assault, to me, is not medical care. Period,” he said. “It’s sad that we need to clarify that sexual assault is not medical care. But trying to tie sexual assault to a medical malpractice [filing deadline] – it’s just wrong.”
‘Your husband is a lucky man’
Ms. Mateer had gone to Dr. Broadbent in 2008 for a premarital exam, a uniquely Utah visit often scheduled by young women who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Leaders of the faith, which is predominant in Utah, focus on chastity when speaking to young, unmarried people about sex, and public schools have typically focused on abstinence-based sex education. So for some, these visits are the first place they learn about sexual health.
Young women who get premarital exams are typically given a birth control prescription, but the appointments can include care that’s less common for healthy women in other states – such as doctors giving them vaginal dilators to stretch their tissues before their wedding nights.
That’s what Ms. Mateer was expecting when she visited Dr. Broadbent’s office. The ob.gyn. had been practicing for decades in his Provo clinic nestled between student housing apartments across the street from Brigham Young University, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So Ms. Mateer was “just totally taken aback,” she said, by the painful examination and by Dr. Broadbent snapping off his gloves after the exam and saying, “Your husband is a lucky man.”
She repeated that remark in her legal filing, along with the doctor’s advice for her: If she bled during intercourse, “just do what the Boy Scouts do and apply pressure.”
“The whole thing was like I’m some object for my husband to enjoy and let him do whatever he wants,” Ms. Mateer said. “It was just very violating and not a great way to start my sexual relationship with my new husband, with these ideas in mind.”
Ms. Mateer thought back to that visit over the years, particularly when she went to other ob.gyns. for health care. Her subsequent doctors, she said, never performed a rectal exam and always explained to her what they were doing and how it would feel, and asked for her consent.
She thought about Dr. Broadbent again in 2017, as the #MeToo movement gained momentum, and looked him up online. Ms. Mateer found reviews from other women who described Dr. Broadbent doing rough examinations without warning that left them feeling the same way she had years before.
Then in December 2021, she spoke out on “Mormon Stories,” a podcast where people who have left or have questioned their Latter-day Saint faith share their life stories. In the episode, she described the painful way he examined her, how it left her feeling traumatized, and her discovery of the reviews that echoed her experience.
“He’s on University Avenue, in Provo, giving these exams to who knows how many naive Mormon 18-year-old, 19-year-old girls who are getting married. … They are naive and they don’t know what to expect,” she said on the podcast. “His name is Dr. David Broadbent.”
After the podcast aired, Ms. Mateer was flooded with messages from women who heard the episode and reached out to tell her that Dr. Broadbent had harmed them, too.
Ms. Mateer and three other women decided to sue the ob.gyn., and in the following weeks and months, 90 additional women joined the lawsuit they filed in Provo. Many of the women allege Dr. Broadbent inappropriately touched their breasts, vaginas and rectums, hurting them, without warning or explanation. Some said he used his bare hand – instead of using a speculum or gloves – during exams. One alleged that she saw he had an erection while he was touching her.
Dr. Broadbent’s actions were not medically necessary, the women allege, and were instead “performed for no other reason than his own sexual gratification.”
The lawsuit also named as defendants two hospitals where Dr. Broadbent had delivered babies and where some of the women allege they were assaulted. The suit accused hospital administrators of knowing about Dr. Broadbent’s inappropriate behavior and doing nothing about it.
After he was sued, the ob.gyn. quickly lost his privileges at the hospitals where he worked. Dr. Broadbent, now 75, has also voluntarily put his medical license in Utah on hold while police investigate 29 reports of sexual assault made against him.
Prosecutors are still considering whether to criminally prosecute Dr. Broadbent. Provo police forwarded more than a dozen reports to the Utah County attorney’s office in November, which are still being reviewed by a local prosecutor.
A spokesperson for Intermountain Health, the nonprofit health system that owns Utah Valley Hospital, where some of the women in the suit were treated, did not respond to specific questions. The spokesperson emphasized in an email that Dr. Broadbent was an “independent physician” who was not employed by Utah Valley Hospital, adding that most of the alleged incidents took place at Dr. Broadbent’s medical office.
A representative for MountainStar Healthcare, another hospital chain named as a defendant, denied knowledge of any allegations of inappropriate conduct reported to its hospital and also emphasized that Dr. Broadbent worked independently, not as an employee.
“Our position since this lawsuit was filed has been that we were inappropriately named in this suit,” said Brittany Glas, the communications director for MountainStar.
Debating whether sexual abuse is health care
For the women who sued Dr. Broadbent, their case boiled down to a key question: Were the sexual assaults they say they experienced part of their health care? There was a lot hanging on the answer.
If their case was considered medical malpractice, they would be limited in how much money they could receive in damages for their pain and suffering. If a jury awarded them millions of dollars, a judge would be required by law to cut that down to $450,000. There’s no cap on these monetary awards for victims sexually assaulted in other settings.
They would also be required to go before a panel, which includes a doctor, a lawyer and a community member, that decides whether their claims have merit. This step, aimed at resolving disputes out of court, does not block anyone from suing afterward. But it does add cost and delay, and for sexual assault victims who’ve gone through this step, it has been another time they were required to describe their experiences and hope they were believed.
The shorter, 2-year filing deadline for medical malpractice cases can also be a particular challenge for those who have been sexually abused because research shows that it’s common to delay reporting such assaults.
Nationwide, these kinds of malpractice reforms were adopted in the 1970s amid concerns – largely driven by insurance companies – that the cost of health care was rising because of frivolous lawsuits and “runaway juries” doling out multimillion-dollar payouts.
Restricting the size of malpractice awards and imposing other limits, many argued, were effective ways to balance compensating injured patients with protecting everyone’s access to health care.
State laws are generally silent on whether sexual assault lawsuits should be covered by malpractice laws, leaving courts to grapple with that question and leading to different conclusions across the country. The Tribune and ProPublica identified at least six cases in which state appellate judges sharply distinguished between assault and health care in considering whether malpractice laws should apply to sexual assault–related cases.
An appellate court in Wisconsin, for example, ruled in 1993 that a physician having an erection and groping a patient was a purposeful harm, not medical malpractice.
Florida’s law is similar to Utah’s, defining allegations “arising” out of medical care as malpractice. While an earlier ruling did treat sexual assault in a health care setting as medical malpractice, appellate rulings in the last decade have moved away from that interpretation. In 2005, an appellate court affirmed a lower-court ruling that when a dentist “stopped providing dental treatment to the victim and began sexually assaulting her, his professional services ended.”
Similarly, a federal judge in Iowa in 1995 weighed in on the meaning of “arising” out of health care: “Rape is not patient care activity,” he wrote.
But Utah’s malpractice law is so broad that judges have been interpreting it as covering any act performed by a health care provider during medical care. The law was passed in 1976 and is popular with doctors and other health care providers, who have lobbied to keep it in place – and who use it to get lawsuits dismissed.
One precedent-setting case in Utah shows the law’s power to safeguard health care providers and was an important test of how Utah defines medical malpractice. Jacob Scott sued WinGate Wilderness Therapy after the teen broke his leg in 2015 when a hiking guide from the center allowed him to climb up and down a steep outcrop in Utah’s red rock desert.
His parents are both lawyers, and after they found that Utah had a 4-year deadline for filing a personal injury lawsuit, court records said, they decided to prioritize “getting Jacob better” for the first 2 years after the accident. But when Mr. Scott’s suit was filed, WinGate argued it was too late – based on the shorter, 2-year deadline for medical malpractice claims.
Mr. Scott’s attorneys scoffed. “Interacting with nature,” his attorneys argued, “is not health care even under the broadest interpretation of … the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.”
A judge disagreed and threw out Mr. Scott’s case. The Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling in 2021.
“We agree with WinGate,” the justices wrote, “that it was acting as a ‘health care provider’ and providing ‘health care’ when Jacob was hiking and rock climbing.”
Last summer, the women who had sued Dr. Broadbent and the two hospitals watched online as lawyers debated whether the abuse they allegedly suffered was health care.
At the hearing, attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued that the women should have pursued a medical malpractice case, which required them to first notify Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals that they wanted to sue. They also argued to Judge Robert Lunnen that the case couldn’t move forward because the women hadn’t gone before a prelitigation panel.
Attorneys for Dr. Broadbent and the hospitals argued, one after the other, that the painful and traumatic exams the women described arose out of health care treatments.
“Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true – as we must for purposes of this proceeding – we have to assume that [Broadbent] did something that was medically unnecessary, medically inappropriate,” argued David Jordan, a lawyer for Intermountain Health.
“But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s an act performed to a patient, during the patient’s treatment,” he said. “Because that’s what the patient is doing in the doctor’s office. They’re there for treatment.”
The attorney team for the women pushed back. Terry Rooney argued that if Dr. Broadbent’s actions fell under medical malpractice laws, many women would be knocked out of the case because of the age of their claims, and those who remained would be limited in the amount of money in damages they could receive.
“That’s really what this is about,” he argued. “And so it’s troubling – quite frankly it’s shocking to me – that we’re debating heavily the question of whether sexual abuse is health care.”
The judge mulled the issue for months. Judge Lunnen wrote in a September ruling that if the allegations were true, Dr. Broadbent’s treatment of his patients was “insensitive, disrespectful and degrading.”
But Utah law is clear, he said. Malpractice law covers any act or treatment performed by any health care provider during the patient’s medical care. The women had all been seeking health care, Judge Lunnen wrote, and Dr. Broadbent was providing that when the alleged assaults happened.
Their lawsuit was dismissed.
‘I felt defeated’
Brooke, another plaintiff who alleges Dr. Broadbent groped her, remembers feeling sick on the June day she watched the attorneys arguing. She asked to be identified by only her first name for this story.
She alleges Dr. Broadbent violated her in December 2008 while she was hospitalized after experiencing complications with her first pregnancy.
The nearest hospital to her rural town didn’t have a special unit to take care of premature babies, and her doctors feared she might need to deliver her son 6 weeks early. So Brooke had been rushed by ambulance over a mountain pass in a snowstorm to Utah Valley Hospital.
Brooke and her husband were terrified, she said, when they arrived at the Provo hospital. Dr. Broadbent happened to be the doctor on call. With Brooke’s husband and brother-in-law in the room, Dr. Broadbent examined her late that evening, she said, listening to her chest with a stethoscope.
The doctor then suddenly grabbed her breasts, she recalled – his movements causing her hospital gown to fall to expose her chest. She recounted this experience in her lawsuit, saying it was nothing like the breast exams she has had since.
“It was really traumatizing,” she said. “I was mortified. My husband and brother-in-law – we just didn’t say anything about it because it was so uncomfortable.”
Brooke voiced concerns to the nurse manager, and she was assigned a new doctor.
She gave birth to a healthy baby a little more than a month later, at the hospital near her home.
Hearing the judge’s ruling 14 years later, Brooke felt the decision revealed how Utah’s laws are broken.
“I was frustrated,” she said, “and I felt defeated. … I thought justice is not on our side with this.”
If the Utah Supreme Court rules that these alleged sexual assaults should legally be considered health care, the women will likely refile their claims as a medical malpractice lawsuit, said their attorney, Adam Sorensen. But it would be a challenge to keep all 94 women in the case, he said, due to the shorter filing window. Only two women in the lawsuit allege that they were harmed within the last 2 years.
The legal team for the women would have to convince a judge that their claims should still be allowed because they only recently discovered they were harmed. But based on previous rulings, Mr. Sorensen believes the women will have a better chance to win that argument if the civil suit remained a sexual assault case.
Regardless of what happens in their legal case, the decision by Brooke and the other women to come forward could help change state law for victims who come after them.
Recently, Mr. McKell, the state senator, introduced legislation to clarify that civil lawsuits alleging sexual assault by a health care worker do not fall under Utah’s Health Care Malpractice Act.
“I don’t think it’s a close call. Sexual assault is not medical care,” he said. “I know we’ve got some bizarre rulings that have come down through our courts in Utah.”
Both an association of Utah trial lawyers and the Utah Medical Association, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s physicians, support this reform.
“We support the fact that sexual assault should not be part of health care medical malpractice,” said Michelle McOmber, the CEO for the Utah Medical Association. “Sexual assault should be sexual assault, regardless of where it happens or who’s doing it. Sexual assault should be in that category, which is separate from actual health care. Because it’s not health care.”
MountainStar doesn’t have a position on the bill, Ms. Glas said. “If the laws were to change via new legislation and/or interpretation by the courts, we would abide by and comply with those new laws.”
But lawmakers are running out of time. With only a short time left in Utah’s legislative session, state senate and house leaders have so far prioritized passing new laws banning gender-affirming health care for transgender youths and creating a controversial school voucher program that will provide taxpayer funds for students to attend private school.
Utah lawmakers were also expected to consider a dramatic change for other sexual assault victims: a bill that would remove filing deadlines for civil lawsuits brought by people abused as adults. But that bill stalled before it could be debated.
Brooke had been eager to share her story, she said, in hopes it would help the first four women who’d come forward bolster their lawsuit against Dr. Broadbent. She later joined the case as a plaintiff. She read in their lawsuit about one woman who complained about him to the same hospital 7 years before she did, and about another woman who said Dr. Broadbent similarly molested her 2 days after Brooke had expressed her own concern.
“That bothered me so much,” she said. “It didn’t have to happen to all these women.”
Brooke doubts she’ll get vindication in a courtroom. Justice for her, she suspects, won’t come in the form of a legal ruling or a settlement against the doctor she says hurt her years ago.
Instead, she said, “maybe justice looks like changing the laws for future women.”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
What’s holding back physicians from prescribing biosimilars? Four specialties weigh in
While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.
In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.
Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients
2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.
There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”
The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education
Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.
Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).
“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”
Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars
Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.
About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.
Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.
Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
Ophthalmologists remain wary
Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.
George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.
When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.
Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.
While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.
In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.
Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients
2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.
There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”
The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education
Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.
Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).
“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”
Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars
Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.
About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.
Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.
Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
Ophthalmologists remain wary
Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.
George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.
When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.
Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.
While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While most providers think that biosimilars will positively impact care, few feel that the economic benefits of biosimilars to date are enough to motivate switching.
In a new survey of over 350 dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, clinicians shared their opinions on the rapidly evolving landscape of biosimilars, detailing top concerns about prescribing these medications and how they presently use biosimilars in clinical practice. Across all specialties, providers said they would be most likely to prescribe biosimilars to new patients or if a patient’s health plan mandated the switch. Most providers listed concerns about biosimilar efficacy and lack of economic benefit as the main barriers to adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.
Cardinal Health, a health care services company based in Dublin, Ohio, conducted the surveys from July through October 2022.
Rheumatologists want cost-savings for patients
2023 is gearing up to be a big year for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases, with at least eight adalimumab biosimilars entering the market in the United States. Amjevita, manufactured by Amgen, was the first to become commercially available on Jan. 31. Out of 103 surveyed rheumatologists, 62% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, and 32% said they were somewhat comfortable. Providers said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to new patients (40%) or if biosimilars were mandated by a patient’s health plan (41%). Nearly one-third (31%) of rheumatologists said that a discount of 21%-30% from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar.
There are several reasons why a rheumatologist might be wary of switching patients to biosimilars, said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Rheumatologists will always express concern about changing medications that work well for their patients. It is not ideal to ‘force switch’ to a different product, even if it is almost identical,” he told this news organization in an email. “Also, we must remember that a patient on a biologic has failed traditional medications, which speaks to the struggle a patient must endure to get their disease under control. Fail-first situations can cause a rheumatologist to be initially resistant or hesitant to any changes.”
The top concerns among rheumatologists about prescribing biosimilars were medication efficacy (36%), lack of economic benefit (24%), and evaluating when to prescribe a biosimilar versus a reference product (17%). For adalimumab biosimilars, rheumatologists said that interchangeability – a regulatory designation where a biosimilar can be automatically substituted for its reference product at the pharmacy – and citrate-free formulation were the most important product attributes. Sixty-four percent of providers also noted that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
“There needs to be a true reduction in price, to change providers’ opinions on the economic benefits of biosimilars – in the system generally and for the patient,” Dr. Snow said. “Things will get there eventually, but it is not there yet, based on the list prices we see for some biosimilars.”
Gastroenterologists emphasize patient education
Gastroenterology is another specialty to be affected by the influx of adalimumab biosimilars. Out of 72 surveyed gastroenterologists, 86% said they were very comfortable prescribing biosimilars. About half (49%) said they would be most likely to prescribe a biosimilar to patients with health plans mandating a biosimilar. More than 60% of surveyed gastroenterologists said that biosimilars would positively impact care; providers were divided on the current economic benefits of biosimilars, with 36% saying that the current discounts on biosimilars versus reference products were not favorable enough to motivate switching, and 35% stating that they were. A total of 40% of surveyed providers said that savings of 21%-30%, compared with savings of a reference product, would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal.
Gastroenterologists said that, along with the efficacy and cost savings of biosimilars, providing patient education (18%) was a top concern when prescribing biosimilars. Eighty-four percent of respondents said that educating patients about biosimilars as safe and effective treatment options was at least somewhat important. Nearly all participants (99%) cited device ease-of-use as at least somewhat important when considering prescribing adalimumab biosimilars, in addition to interchangeability (97%) and citrate-free formulation (93%).
“Despite general acceptance of biosimilars, there remains some uncertainty regarding their place in the current gastroenterology landscape,” wrote Vivek Kaul, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, in the report. “This is likely because only half of the survey respondents believed that biosimilars will positively impact gastroenterology care, further highlighting the ongoing need for real-world data and incorporation of biosimilar use and interchangeability into clinical guidelines.”
Few dermatologists currently prescribe biosimilars
Eight out of ten dermatologists reported being at least somewhat comfortable prescribing biosimilars to patients, though fewer than 20% said they had prescribed a biosimilar in the past year. This indicates limited adoption of infliximab biosimilars, which were the only biosimilars with a dermatologic indication available in 2022, Alex Gross, MD, a dermatologist in Cumming, Ga., noted in his featured commentary in the report. Just 15% of respondents disagreed that biosimilars would have a positive impact on care, and 41% said they were excited about new biosimilars becoming available.
About half (47%) of dermatologists thought the economic benefits of biosimilars were not strong enough to motivate switching patients from reference products. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that discounts of 21%-30% from a reference product would motivate them to switch patients to a biosimilar, with all other clinical factors being equal, while 20% said they were not likely to prescribe a biosimilar regardless of savings.
Dermatologists may be concerned that these cost savings may not be passed onto patients, said Alison Ehrlich, MD, a dermatologist in Washington, in an email to this news organization. Patient out-of-pocket cost savings would need to be “both significant and transparent” to begin to change providers’ minds, she noted.
Biosimilar efficacy was a top concern for 48% of dermatologists, while 13% said their main concern around prescribing biosimilars was lack of payer adoption. At least 95% of providers said that device ease-of-use and interchangeability were the most important attributes when considering adalimumab biosimilars. Nearly two-thirds (65%) reported that patient out-of-pocket cost would be key when deciding to prescribe an adalimumab biosimilar.
If both patients and providers are informed on biosimilar use and there are cost benefits, dermatologists’ opinions may become more favorable toward biosimilars, but that will take time, Dr. Ehrlich said. “We are very early in the game for biosimilar use in dermatology,” she added.
Ophthalmologists remain wary
Biosimilars have been relatively new to ophthalmology, with the first ranibizumab biosimilar becoming commercially available in July 2022. In the survey, 64 retina specialists were asked different questions than participants from other specialties to gauge ophthalmologists› familiarity with the biosimilars approval process and their overall comfort prescribing these medications. The primary concerns with prescribing biosimilars among respondents was payer coverage (52%), being uncomfortable with biosimilars from a clinical standpoint (48%), and administrative barriers (45%), such as prior authorization. Despite this lack of comfort with biosimilars, two-thirds of participants thought the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process for these medications was sufficient to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Still, fewer than half (48%) of providers said they do or would prescribe biosimilars.
George Williams, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Ophthalmology, noted that the FDA approval process for biosimilars was not as rigorous as for the respective reference product, and fewer patients are followed over a shorter time period. “Since anti–[vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] therapy for indications such as neovascular age-related macular degeneration continues indefinitely over years, ophthalmologists may have concerns about the long-term efficacy and safety when applied to larger real-world populations. Ophthalmologists are well aware of safety issues with VEGF inhibitors arising after FDA approval,” he told this news organization in an email.
When asked about the likelihood of using either aflibercept or ranibizumab biosimilars in their clinical practice once commercially available, 70% of ophthalmologists said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe aflibercept biosimilars, and 64% said they would be at least somewhat likely to prescribe ranibizumab biosimilars. About half of respondents said they would not likely switch a currently stable patient on either aflibercept or ranibizumab to the corresponding biosimilar. More than half of ophthalmologists (56%) said they would prescribe a biosimilar only if it had an interchangeability designation.
Out of all four specialties, ophthalmologists more frequently reported that higher discounts from a reference product would be necessary to consider switching a patient to a biosimilar. Currently, many ophthalmologists are comfortable with the off-label use of bevacizumab (Avastin) for treating wet age-related macular degeneration, which also offers more cost savings than any currently available biosimilar on the market, Dr. Williams said.
While the limited number of respondents makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions, Dr. Williams emphasized that the AAO supported the use of biosimilars. “We believe that with clinical experience ophthalmic biosimilars will become useful therapeutic agents,” he noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How spirituality guides these three doctors
Whether you’re spiritual, religious – or neither – the Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 asked if you have a religious or spiritual belief. Turns out 69% of physicians shared that they have a spiritual or religious practice.
Tapping into the universe
Nick Shamie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spine surgery at University of California, Los Angeles, says the constant challenges of making life-and-death decisions offer an opportunity to check in with a higher power.
“Sometimes when I’m going into a tough surgery or have a tough situation, I pause and think about how this isn’t about me and the situation I’m in,” says Dr. Shamie, whose family is Muslim. “It’s about the whole universe. I feel like someone, or some being, is looking over my shoulders, and if my intentions are good, I’ll be fine. The person I’m going to take care of will be fine. That’s how I use my faith.”
Having a belief in something greater than herself also fuels Jill Carnahan, MD, a family medicine physician and functional medicine expert in Boulder, Colo.
“This is key for me as a physician,” says Dr. Carnahan, author of “Unexpected: Finding Resilience Through Functional Medicine, Science, and Faith.” “I urge physicians to think about their source of strength. That’s not necessarily even religious. It could be meditation or being in nature.”
Dr. Carnahan likes to share with patients that there are lessons that can come from being ill – whether treating ill patients or struggling with one’s own illness.
“I like to teach this idea of illness as a teacher,” says Dr. Carnahan, who has Crohn’s disease and is a cancer survivor. “This is tough, but what you’re saying here is that there is meaning or purpose to this experience. It brings awareness to your life that may not have been there before.”
Often illness is our body’s way of getting our attention that our life, relationships, or work needs adjustment. Illness can be a reminder to make changes. “For example, a diagnosis of autoimmunity may be a reminder to take better care of ourselves, or a diagnosis of cancer may cause us to get out of an unhealthy relationship or change jobs to do something more fulfilling, as we have increased awareness of the brevity of life.”
When patients are affected by illness, pain, reduced functionality, and even imminent death, understanding the experience is difficult, and finding any purpose in it may seem impossible. Still, studies show that those who find meaning in the experience cope better with their illness.
Finding that meaning may be a strong driver of survival and may be positively related to hope, belief, and happiness.
Spirituality supports patients
Even if you’re not religious yourself, it can be helpful to support a patient who opts to pray before an arduous procedure, says Sharyar Baradaran, DDS, a periodontist specializing in gum surgery in Beverly Hills, Calif.
“I’ve had patients who go into meditation mode, or they say a prayer before I start surgery,” he says. “I take that opportunity to connect. In that instance, we hold hands. I want them to know that I understand what they’re going through and how they’re trying to find the courage to undergo surgery.”
When Dr. Shamie was a child, his father described religion as embodying the basic tenet of being good to others. “I’ve taken that to heart,” he says. “All religions, all faiths have that as a central premise.”
These doctors agree that when you take the time to stop and hold a patient’s hand, bow your head during their prayer, or acknowledge or speak for a few moments about their faith, especially during a health crisis, surgery, or challenging diagnosis, patients appreciate it and develop an even deeper connection with you.
Dr. Baradaran believes spirituality can play an important role in how health care providers care for patients. Though it may not be widely discussed or reported, and physicians may find little time and space to address patients’ spiritual needs, there is growing sensitivity regarding spirituality in health care. One study found that while physicians understand its importance, nurses are more apt to integrate spirituality into practice.
“No matter the religion, if you’re spiritual, it means you’re listening and being respectful,” says Dr. Baradaran, who is Jewish. “There are times that I’m not familiar with the prayers my patients are saying, but I always take them in, absorb them, and respect them. This allows me to have a deeper connection with them, which is wonderful.”
Dr. Shamie says that he turns to his faith in good times as well as tough ones.
“I see a lot of people who are dealing with very difficult situations, and it’s not their choice to be in this position,” he says. “At those moments, I think to myself how fortunate I am that I’m not experiencing what this individual or family is going through. I do thank God at that time. I appreciate the life I have, and when I witness hardships, it resets my appreciation.”
For Dr. Carnahan, faith is about becoming comfortable with the inevitable uncertainty of life. It’s also about finding ways to tap into the day’s stresses.
“As physicians, we’re workaholics, and one in four of us are burnt out,” she says. “One solution that really works is to step back from the day-to-day grind and find time to pray or meditate or be in nature.”
There are times when a tragedy occurs, and despite your most intense efforts, a patient may die. Those experiences can be crushing to a physician. However, to guide you through the loss of a patient or the daily juggles of managing your practice, Dr. Carnahan suggests finding time every morning to focus on the day ahead and how you connect with the universe.
“I take 15 minutes in the morning and think about how I will bring love to the world,” she says. “If you look for the miracles and the good and the unexpected, that gratitude shift allows your mind to be transformed by what’s happening. It’s often in those moments that you’ll realize again why you went into medicine in the first place.”
Doctors without faith
So, what does this mean if you’re among the 25% of physicians in the Medscape report who do not have a religious or spiritual leaning and aren’t apt to be spiritually minded when it comes to your patients? An article on KevinMD.com points out that atheist physicians are often in the closet about their atheism because they usually bow their heads or keep a respectful silence when a patient or their family offers a prayer request before surgery or a prayer of thanks after a procedure.
The retired atheist physician who wrote the piece reminds us that nonreligious doctors are good people with a high moral compass who may not believe in an afterlife. However, that means they try to make their patients’ quality of life the best they can.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Whether you’re spiritual, religious – or neither – the Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 asked if you have a religious or spiritual belief. Turns out 69% of physicians shared that they have a spiritual or religious practice.
Tapping into the universe
Nick Shamie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spine surgery at University of California, Los Angeles, says the constant challenges of making life-and-death decisions offer an opportunity to check in with a higher power.
“Sometimes when I’m going into a tough surgery or have a tough situation, I pause and think about how this isn’t about me and the situation I’m in,” says Dr. Shamie, whose family is Muslim. “It’s about the whole universe. I feel like someone, or some being, is looking over my shoulders, and if my intentions are good, I’ll be fine. The person I’m going to take care of will be fine. That’s how I use my faith.”
Having a belief in something greater than herself also fuels Jill Carnahan, MD, a family medicine physician and functional medicine expert in Boulder, Colo.
“This is key for me as a physician,” says Dr. Carnahan, author of “Unexpected: Finding Resilience Through Functional Medicine, Science, and Faith.” “I urge physicians to think about their source of strength. That’s not necessarily even religious. It could be meditation or being in nature.”
Dr. Carnahan likes to share with patients that there are lessons that can come from being ill – whether treating ill patients or struggling with one’s own illness.
“I like to teach this idea of illness as a teacher,” says Dr. Carnahan, who has Crohn’s disease and is a cancer survivor. “This is tough, but what you’re saying here is that there is meaning or purpose to this experience. It brings awareness to your life that may not have been there before.”
Often illness is our body’s way of getting our attention that our life, relationships, or work needs adjustment. Illness can be a reminder to make changes. “For example, a diagnosis of autoimmunity may be a reminder to take better care of ourselves, or a diagnosis of cancer may cause us to get out of an unhealthy relationship or change jobs to do something more fulfilling, as we have increased awareness of the brevity of life.”
When patients are affected by illness, pain, reduced functionality, and even imminent death, understanding the experience is difficult, and finding any purpose in it may seem impossible. Still, studies show that those who find meaning in the experience cope better with their illness.
Finding that meaning may be a strong driver of survival and may be positively related to hope, belief, and happiness.
Spirituality supports patients
Even if you’re not religious yourself, it can be helpful to support a patient who opts to pray before an arduous procedure, says Sharyar Baradaran, DDS, a periodontist specializing in gum surgery in Beverly Hills, Calif.
“I’ve had patients who go into meditation mode, or they say a prayer before I start surgery,” he says. “I take that opportunity to connect. In that instance, we hold hands. I want them to know that I understand what they’re going through and how they’re trying to find the courage to undergo surgery.”
When Dr. Shamie was a child, his father described religion as embodying the basic tenet of being good to others. “I’ve taken that to heart,” he says. “All religions, all faiths have that as a central premise.”
These doctors agree that when you take the time to stop and hold a patient’s hand, bow your head during their prayer, or acknowledge or speak for a few moments about their faith, especially during a health crisis, surgery, or challenging diagnosis, patients appreciate it and develop an even deeper connection with you.
Dr. Baradaran believes spirituality can play an important role in how health care providers care for patients. Though it may not be widely discussed or reported, and physicians may find little time and space to address patients’ spiritual needs, there is growing sensitivity regarding spirituality in health care. One study found that while physicians understand its importance, nurses are more apt to integrate spirituality into practice.
“No matter the religion, if you’re spiritual, it means you’re listening and being respectful,” says Dr. Baradaran, who is Jewish. “There are times that I’m not familiar with the prayers my patients are saying, but I always take them in, absorb them, and respect them. This allows me to have a deeper connection with them, which is wonderful.”
Dr. Shamie says that he turns to his faith in good times as well as tough ones.
“I see a lot of people who are dealing with very difficult situations, and it’s not their choice to be in this position,” he says. “At those moments, I think to myself how fortunate I am that I’m not experiencing what this individual or family is going through. I do thank God at that time. I appreciate the life I have, and when I witness hardships, it resets my appreciation.”
For Dr. Carnahan, faith is about becoming comfortable with the inevitable uncertainty of life. It’s also about finding ways to tap into the day’s stresses.
“As physicians, we’re workaholics, and one in four of us are burnt out,” she says. “One solution that really works is to step back from the day-to-day grind and find time to pray or meditate or be in nature.”
There are times when a tragedy occurs, and despite your most intense efforts, a patient may die. Those experiences can be crushing to a physician. However, to guide you through the loss of a patient or the daily juggles of managing your practice, Dr. Carnahan suggests finding time every morning to focus on the day ahead and how you connect with the universe.
“I take 15 minutes in the morning and think about how I will bring love to the world,” she says. “If you look for the miracles and the good and the unexpected, that gratitude shift allows your mind to be transformed by what’s happening. It’s often in those moments that you’ll realize again why you went into medicine in the first place.”
Doctors without faith
So, what does this mean if you’re among the 25% of physicians in the Medscape report who do not have a religious or spiritual leaning and aren’t apt to be spiritually minded when it comes to your patients? An article on KevinMD.com points out that atheist physicians are often in the closet about their atheism because they usually bow their heads or keep a respectful silence when a patient or their family offers a prayer request before surgery or a prayer of thanks after a procedure.
The retired atheist physician who wrote the piece reminds us that nonreligious doctors are good people with a high moral compass who may not believe in an afterlife. However, that means they try to make their patients’ quality of life the best they can.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Whether you’re spiritual, religious – or neither – the Medscape Physician Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023 asked if you have a religious or spiritual belief. Turns out 69% of physicians shared that they have a spiritual or religious practice.
Tapping into the universe
Nick Shamie, MD, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spine surgery at University of California, Los Angeles, says the constant challenges of making life-and-death decisions offer an opportunity to check in with a higher power.
“Sometimes when I’m going into a tough surgery or have a tough situation, I pause and think about how this isn’t about me and the situation I’m in,” says Dr. Shamie, whose family is Muslim. “It’s about the whole universe. I feel like someone, or some being, is looking over my shoulders, and if my intentions are good, I’ll be fine. The person I’m going to take care of will be fine. That’s how I use my faith.”
Having a belief in something greater than herself also fuels Jill Carnahan, MD, a family medicine physician and functional medicine expert in Boulder, Colo.
“This is key for me as a physician,” says Dr. Carnahan, author of “Unexpected: Finding Resilience Through Functional Medicine, Science, and Faith.” “I urge physicians to think about their source of strength. That’s not necessarily even religious. It could be meditation or being in nature.”
Dr. Carnahan likes to share with patients that there are lessons that can come from being ill – whether treating ill patients or struggling with one’s own illness.
“I like to teach this idea of illness as a teacher,” says Dr. Carnahan, who has Crohn’s disease and is a cancer survivor. “This is tough, but what you’re saying here is that there is meaning or purpose to this experience. It brings awareness to your life that may not have been there before.”
Often illness is our body’s way of getting our attention that our life, relationships, or work needs adjustment. Illness can be a reminder to make changes. “For example, a diagnosis of autoimmunity may be a reminder to take better care of ourselves, or a diagnosis of cancer may cause us to get out of an unhealthy relationship or change jobs to do something more fulfilling, as we have increased awareness of the brevity of life.”
When patients are affected by illness, pain, reduced functionality, and even imminent death, understanding the experience is difficult, and finding any purpose in it may seem impossible. Still, studies show that those who find meaning in the experience cope better with their illness.
Finding that meaning may be a strong driver of survival and may be positively related to hope, belief, and happiness.
Spirituality supports patients
Even if you’re not religious yourself, it can be helpful to support a patient who opts to pray before an arduous procedure, says Sharyar Baradaran, DDS, a periodontist specializing in gum surgery in Beverly Hills, Calif.
“I’ve had patients who go into meditation mode, or they say a prayer before I start surgery,” he says. “I take that opportunity to connect. In that instance, we hold hands. I want them to know that I understand what they’re going through and how they’re trying to find the courage to undergo surgery.”
When Dr. Shamie was a child, his father described religion as embodying the basic tenet of being good to others. “I’ve taken that to heart,” he says. “All religions, all faiths have that as a central premise.”
These doctors agree that when you take the time to stop and hold a patient’s hand, bow your head during their prayer, or acknowledge or speak for a few moments about their faith, especially during a health crisis, surgery, or challenging diagnosis, patients appreciate it and develop an even deeper connection with you.
Dr. Baradaran believes spirituality can play an important role in how health care providers care for patients. Though it may not be widely discussed or reported, and physicians may find little time and space to address patients’ spiritual needs, there is growing sensitivity regarding spirituality in health care. One study found that while physicians understand its importance, nurses are more apt to integrate spirituality into practice.
“No matter the religion, if you’re spiritual, it means you’re listening and being respectful,” says Dr. Baradaran, who is Jewish. “There are times that I’m not familiar with the prayers my patients are saying, but I always take them in, absorb them, and respect them. This allows me to have a deeper connection with them, which is wonderful.”
Dr. Shamie says that he turns to his faith in good times as well as tough ones.
“I see a lot of people who are dealing with very difficult situations, and it’s not their choice to be in this position,” he says. “At those moments, I think to myself how fortunate I am that I’m not experiencing what this individual or family is going through. I do thank God at that time. I appreciate the life I have, and when I witness hardships, it resets my appreciation.”
For Dr. Carnahan, faith is about becoming comfortable with the inevitable uncertainty of life. It’s also about finding ways to tap into the day’s stresses.
“As physicians, we’re workaholics, and one in four of us are burnt out,” she says. “One solution that really works is to step back from the day-to-day grind and find time to pray or meditate or be in nature.”
There are times when a tragedy occurs, and despite your most intense efforts, a patient may die. Those experiences can be crushing to a physician. However, to guide you through the loss of a patient or the daily juggles of managing your practice, Dr. Carnahan suggests finding time every morning to focus on the day ahead and how you connect with the universe.
“I take 15 minutes in the morning and think about how I will bring love to the world,” she says. “If you look for the miracles and the good and the unexpected, that gratitude shift allows your mind to be transformed by what’s happening. It’s often in those moments that you’ll realize again why you went into medicine in the first place.”
Doctors without faith
So, what does this mean if you’re among the 25% of physicians in the Medscape report who do not have a religious or spiritual leaning and aren’t apt to be spiritually minded when it comes to your patients? An article on KevinMD.com points out that atheist physicians are often in the closet about their atheism because they usually bow their heads or keep a respectful silence when a patient or their family offers a prayer request before surgery or a prayer of thanks after a procedure.
The retired atheist physician who wrote the piece reminds us that nonreligious doctors are good people with a high moral compass who may not believe in an afterlife. However, that means they try to make their patients’ quality of life the best they can.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two cups of coffee increase heart dangers with hypertension
according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.
What to know
People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.
Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.
An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.
Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.
Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.
This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.
What to know
People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.
Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.
An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.
Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.
Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.
This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.
What to know
People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.
Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.
An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.
Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.
Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.
This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
Zero tolerance for patient bias: Too harsh? Clinicians respond
If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?
In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.
Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.
When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.
“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.
The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.
“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”
Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.
Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”
Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
Accents and understanding
“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.
Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”
“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”
A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”
Bias against female doctors, male nurses
Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.
A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”
Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”
However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”
“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”
A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”
“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
Don’t take it personally, move on
“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.
Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.
A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”
“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”
Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”
A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.
“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”
Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
Patient bias vs. patient preference
A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”
“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”
“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.
A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
Maybe a different strategy is needed
“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”
“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”
“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”
Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?
In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.
Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.
When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.
“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.
The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.
“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”
Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.
Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”
Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
Accents and understanding
“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.
Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”
“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”
A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”
Bias against female doctors, male nurses
Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.
A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”
Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”
However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”
“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”
A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”
“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
Don’t take it personally, move on
“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.
Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.
A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”
“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”
Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”
A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.
“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”
Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
Patient bias vs. patient preference
A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”
“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”
“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.
A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
Maybe a different strategy is needed
“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”
“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”
“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”
Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?
In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.
Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.
When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.
“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.
The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.
“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”
Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.
Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”
Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
Accents and understanding
“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.
Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”
“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”
A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”
Bias against female doctors, male nurses
Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.
A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”
Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”
However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”
“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”
A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”
“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
Don’t take it personally, move on
“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.
Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.
A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”
“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”
Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”
A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.
“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”
Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
Patient bias vs. patient preference
A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”
“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”
“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.
A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
Maybe a different strategy is needed
“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”
“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”
“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”
Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiologists weigh in on ethically challenging issues
Would you tell a patient about a potentially harmful medical mistake? Would you upcode or overstate a patient’s condition so an insurer will cover it? What about reporting a colleague who seems impaired or engages in sexual harassment or bullying?
In a new survey, this news organization asked more than 4,100 U.S. physicians how they would react to these and other ethically challenging scenarios.
For example, a full 80% of cardiologists responding to the survey said they would reveal a potentially harmful medical mistake to their patient.
This aligns with decades of advice from major medical societies such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians, which endorse disclosing to patients and families any error that could jeopardize the patient’s health.
“Disclosure of close calls should also be made. From a health law context, being upfront with the patient is standard practice,” said Eric Mathison, PhD, a clinical ethicist at University of Toronto.
When it comes to upcoding or overstating a patient’s condition so an insurer will cover it, more than three quarters of cardiologists (78%) viewed this as unacceptable, while 9% felt it was okay and 13% said “it depends.”
Many doctors are willing to stretch coding policies to the limit to support patients and their finances, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, NYU professor of bioethics and Medscape blogger. “That’s acceptable advocacy. But most doctors will not say they are willing to commit fraud.”
Okay to breach patient confidentiality?
More than half of cardiologists felt it was okay to breach patient confidentiality when someone’s health could be threatened, 14% felt the opposite, and 29% said it depends.
“I teach that if you know someone faces a direct risk from catching a deadly disease, and you know who that person is, then you have a duty to warn,” Dr. Caplan said. “The disease has to be serious for [breaching confidentiality] to be morally defensible, and your disclosure has to be actionable. Telling your mother won’t achieve a lot” in protecting someone’s health.
In a 2020 ethics survey by this news organization, 72% of cardiologists felt that they could accept a meal or speaking gig from a drug company without its creating any issue for them.
Three years later, only 66% of cardiologists said they could accept a meal or speaking engagement without its influencing their prescribing habits; 21% said they couldn’t and 13% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan thinks that many doctors are deceiving themselves. “We know from business school case studies that even little gifts like calendars and flashlights work. Humans get a sense of debt when they receive gifts. Physicians are no exception. If you get a meal or an invitation to do a talk for a small fee, you may still say, ‘This is nothing to me,’ ” but subconscious favoritism can result, he cautioned.
Support for physician-assisted dying?
Ten states and the District of Columbia now allow physicians to help a terminally ill patient with dying. Fifty percent of cardiologists surveyed support it, 36% are against it, and 14% said it depends. These percentages are roughly the same as in 2020.
Dr. Mathison said the public and physicians are “getting more comfortable with physician-assisted dying. Physicians are seeing it used in practice and hearing from other physicians who are participating.”
However, only 31% of cardiologists felt physician-assisted dying should be allowed for patients in intractable pain; 42% said it should not be legal in this case, and 26% said it depends.
As opposed to physician-assisted dying for terminally ill patients, no U.S. state recognizes the legal right to help end the life of a patient in unending pain. However, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg do under certain conditions.
Going public about issues with a cardiologist’s hospital or health care organization became a major issue during the COVID-19 pandemic as some medical professionals struggled to get enough personal protective equipment and made it known.
More than half of cardiologists surveyed (53%) endorsed speaking out if employers don’t provide needed resources; 9% didn’t feel this was appropriate, and 28% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan noted that prominent cases of hospitals firing nurses and doctors who complained over social media may influence cardiologists’ willingness. He also thinks some doctors would ask, “Speak out to whom?” Many cardiologists will aggressively push for resources through the internal chain of command “but don’t think talking to the media is ethical or appropriate.”
The vast majority of cardiologists and physicians overall said they have never failed to report or investigate suspected domestic abuse of a patient.
Both male and female physicians strongly support reporting of abuse cases, said Thomas May, PhD, a bioethicist at Washington State University, Spokane.
This reflects the “tremendous strides society has made in recognizing the impact of abuse and the need for required-reporting policies, because victims are often, if not usually, reticent to come forward. Required reporting is necessary and in the patient’s interests,” Dr. May said.
Romancing a patient?
More than half (58%) of cardiologists felt that having a romantic relationship with a current patient is not okay; 3% were okay with it, and 30% felt it would be okay at least 6 months after the patient-doctor relationship ended.
Dr. May said a romantic relationship is “inappropriate while the professional relationship is active and even for some time afterward. There’s a professional dynamic that needs to be maintained, a sense of objectivity.
“Plus, the physician is in a power relationship to the patient where there’s a sense of gratefulness or vulnerability that makes the patient unable to say no to a personal relationship,” Dr. May said.
Dr. May is not sure 6 months after they stop being your patient is long enough. “I’d think something like 2 years as a minimum. If I were your oncologist and helped save your life, it may never be appropriate,” Dr. May said.
In other ethical questions, one-quarter of cardiologists would report a doctor who seems impaired by drugs, alcohol, or illness, and 62% would do so only after speaking to him/her first.
“Our obligation is to do no harm to patients, and the professional standards and integrity of the profession are at stake,” one survey respondent said.
Another said, “A colleague who recognizes the problem and after private discussion enters a treatment program is often better served than by the often excessively harsh management by the state medical board.”
But when it comes to random alcohol and drug tests for cardiologists, 51% are not in favor, 31% are in favor, and 18% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan thinks that physicians face enough responsibility to patients to warrant such testing randomly but infrequently. “Doctors may feel like they’re being treated unprofessionally, like drug addicts, or question the accuracy of testing,” he noted. But he tilts instead toward “the moral fight to protect patient safety and trying to drive down malpractice costs.”
When it comes to reporting a colleague for sexual harassment or bullying, 71% of cardiologists said yes, they would report such behavior; only 7% would not, while 22% said it depends.
“If we ignore bad behavior such as this by our colleagues, then we are hurting our profession,” one physician said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Would you tell a patient about a potentially harmful medical mistake? Would you upcode or overstate a patient’s condition so an insurer will cover it? What about reporting a colleague who seems impaired or engages in sexual harassment or bullying?
In a new survey, this news organization asked more than 4,100 U.S. physicians how they would react to these and other ethically challenging scenarios.
For example, a full 80% of cardiologists responding to the survey said they would reveal a potentially harmful medical mistake to their patient.
This aligns with decades of advice from major medical societies such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians, which endorse disclosing to patients and families any error that could jeopardize the patient’s health.
“Disclosure of close calls should also be made. From a health law context, being upfront with the patient is standard practice,” said Eric Mathison, PhD, a clinical ethicist at University of Toronto.
When it comes to upcoding or overstating a patient’s condition so an insurer will cover it, more than three quarters of cardiologists (78%) viewed this as unacceptable, while 9% felt it was okay and 13% said “it depends.”
Many doctors are willing to stretch coding policies to the limit to support patients and their finances, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, NYU professor of bioethics and Medscape blogger. “That’s acceptable advocacy. But most doctors will not say they are willing to commit fraud.”
Okay to breach patient confidentiality?
More than half of cardiologists felt it was okay to breach patient confidentiality when someone’s health could be threatened, 14% felt the opposite, and 29% said it depends.
“I teach that if you know someone faces a direct risk from catching a deadly disease, and you know who that person is, then you have a duty to warn,” Dr. Caplan said. “The disease has to be serious for [breaching confidentiality] to be morally defensible, and your disclosure has to be actionable. Telling your mother won’t achieve a lot” in protecting someone’s health.
In a 2020 ethics survey by this news organization, 72% of cardiologists felt that they could accept a meal or speaking gig from a drug company without its creating any issue for them.
Three years later, only 66% of cardiologists said they could accept a meal or speaking engagement without its influencing their prescribing habits; 21% said they couldn’t and 13% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan thinks that many doctors are deceiving themselves. “We know from business school case studies that even little gifts like calendars and flashlights work. Humans get a sense of debt when they receive gifts. Physicians are no exception. If you get a meal or an invitation to do a talk for a small fee, you may still say, ‘This is nothing to me,’ ” but subconscious favoritism can result, he cautioned.
Support for physician-assisted dying?
Ten states and the District of Columbia now allow physicians to help a terminally ill patient with dying. Fifty percent of cardiologists surveyed support it, 36% are against it, and 14% said it depends. These percentages are roughly the same as in 2020.
Dr. Mathison said the public and physicians are “getting more comfortable with physician-assisted dying. Physicians are seeing it used in practice and hearing from other physicians who are participating.”
However, only 31% of cardiologists felt physician-assisted dying should be allowed for patients in intractable pain; 42% said it should not be legal in this case, and 26% said it depends.
As opposed to physician-assisted dying for terminally ill patients, no U.S. state recognizes the legal right to help end the life of a patient in unending pain. However, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg do under certain conditions.
Going public about issues with a cardiologist’s hospital or health care organization became a major issue during the COVID-19 pandemic as some medical professionals struggled to get enough personal protective equipment and made it known.
More than half of cardiologists surveyed (53%) endorsed speaking out if employers don’t provide needed resources; 9% didn’t feel this was appropriate, and 28% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan noted that prominent cases of hospitals firing nurses and doctors who complained over social media may influence cardiologists’ willingness. He also thinks some doctors would ask, “Speak out to whom?” Many cardiologists will aggressively push for resources through the internal chain of command “but don’t think talking to the media is ethical or appropriate.”
The vast majority of cardiologists and physicians overall said they have never failed to report or investigate suspected domestic abuse of a patient.
Both male and female physicians strongly support reporting of abuse cases, said Thomas May, PhD, a bioethicist at Washington State University, Spokane.
This reflects the “tremendous strides society has made in recognizing the impact of abuse and the need for required-reporting policies, because victims are often, if not usually, reticent to come forward. Required reporting is necessary and in the patient’s interests,” Dr. May said.
Romancing a patient?
More than half (58%) of cardiologists felt that having a romantic relationship with a current patient is not okay; 3% were okay with it, and 30% felt it would be okay at least 6 months after the patient-doctor relationship ended.
Dr. May said a romantic relationship is “inappropriate while the professional relationship is active and even for some time afterward. There’s a professional dynamic that needs to be maintained, a sense of objectivity.
“Plus, the physician is in a power relationship to the patient where there’s a sense of gratefulness or vulnerability that makes the patient unable to say no to a personal relationship,” Dr. May said.
Dr. May is not sure 6 months after they stop being your patient is long enough. “I’d think something like 2 years as a minimum. If I were your oncologist and helped save your life, it may never be appropriate,” Dr. May said.
In other ethical questions, one-quarter of cardiologists would report a doctor who seems impaired by drugs, alcohol, or illness, and 62% would do so only after speaking to him/her first.
“Our obligation is to do no harm to patients, and the professional standards and integrity of the profession are at stake,” one survey respondent said.
Another said, “A colleague who recognizes the problem and after private discussion enters a treatment program is often better served than by the often excessively harsh management by the state medical board.”
But when it comes to random alcohol and drug tests for cardiologists, 51% are not in favor, 31% are in favor, and 18% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan thinks that physicians face enough responsibility to patients to warrant such testing randomly but infrequently. “Doctors may feel like they’re being treated unprofessionally, like drug addicts, or question the accuracy of testing,” he noted. But he tilts instead toward “the moral fight to protect patient safety and trying to drive down malpractice costs.”
When it comes to reporting a colleague for sexual harassment or bullying, 71% of cardiologists said yes, they would report such behavior; only 7% would not, while 22% said it depends.
“If we ignore bad behavior such as this by our colleagues, then we are hurting our profession,” one physician said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Would you tell a patient about a potentially harmful medical mistake? Would you upcode or overstate a patient’s condition so an insurer will cover it? What about reporting a colleague who seems impaired or engages in sexual harassment or bullying?
In a new survey, this news organization asked more than 4,100 U.S. physicians how they would react to these and other ethically challenging scenarios.
For example, a full 80% of cardiologists responding to the survey said they would reveal a potentially harmful medical mistake to their patient.
This aligns with decades of advice from major medical societies such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians, which endorse disclosing to patients and families any error that could jeopardize the patient’s health.
“Disclosure of close calls should also be made. From a health law context, being upfront with the patient is standard practice,” said Eric Mathison, PhD, a clinical ethicist at University of Toronto.
When it comes to upcoding or overstating a patient’s condition so an insurer will cover it, more than three quarters of cardiologists (78%) viewed this as unacceptable, while 9% felt it was okay and 13% said “it depends.”
Many doctors are willing to stretch coding policies to the limit to support patients and their finances, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, NYU professor of bioethics and Medscape blogger. “That’s acceptable advocacy. But most doctors will not say they are willing to commit fraud.”
Okay to breach patient confidentiality?
More than half of cardiologists felt it was okay to breach patient confidentiality when someone’s health could be threatened, 14% felt the opposite, and 29% said it depends.
“I teach that if you know someone faces a direct risk from catching a deadly disease, and you know who that person is, then you have a duty to warn,” Dr. Caplan said. “The disease has to be serious for [breaching confidentiality] to be morally defensible, and your disclosure has to be actionable. Telling your mother won’t achieve a lot” in protecting someone’s health.
In a 2020 ethics survey by this news organization, 72% of cardiologists felt that they could accept a meal or speaking gig from a drug company without its creating any issue for them.
Three years later, only 66% of cardiologists said they could accept a meal or speaking engagement without its influencing their prescribing habits; 21% said they couldn’t and 13% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan thinks that many doctors are deceiving themselves. “We know from business school case studies that even little gifts like calendars and flashlights work. Humans get a sense of debt when they receive gifts. Physicians are no exception. If you get a meal or an invitation to do a talk for a small fee, you may still say, ‘This is nothing to me,’ ” but subconscious favoritism can result, he cautioned.
Support for physician-assisted dying?
Ten states and the District of Columbia now allow physicians to help a terminally ill patient with dying. Fifty percent of cardiologists surveyed support it, 36% are against it, and 14% said it depends. These percentages are roughly the same as in 2020.
Dr. Mathison said the public and physicians are “getting more comfortable with physician-assisted dying. Physicians are seeing it used in practice and hearing from other physicians who are participating.”
However, only 31% of cardiologists felt physician-assisted dying should be allowed for patients in intractable pain; 42% said it should not be legal in this case, and 26% said it depends.
As opposed to physician-assisted dying for terminally ill patients, no U.S. state recognizes the legal right to help end the life of a patient in unending pain. However, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg do under certain conditions.
Going public about issues with a cardiologist’s hospital or health care organization became a major issue during the COVID-19 pandemic as some medical professionals struggled to get enough personal protective equipment and made it known.
More than half of cardiologists surveyed (53%) endorsed speaking out if employers don’t provide needed resources; 9% didn’t feel this was appropriate, and 28% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan noted that prominent cases of hospitals firing nurses and doctors who complained over social media may influence cardiologists’ willingness. He also thinks some doctors would ask, “Speak out to whom?” Many cardiologists will aggressively push for resources through the internal chain of command “but don’t think talking to the media is ethical or appropriate.”
The vast majority of cardiologists and physicians overall said they have never failed to report or investigate suspected domestic abuse of a patient.
Both male and female physicians strongly support reporting of abuse cases, said Thomas May, PhD, a bioethicist at Washington State University, Spokane.
This reflects the “tremendous strides society has made in recognizing the impact of abuse and the need for required-reporting policies, because victims are often, if not usually, reticent to come forward. Required reporting is necessary and in the patient’s interests,” Dr. May said.
Romancing a patient?
More than half (58%) of cardiologists felt that having a romantic relationship with a current patient is not okay; 3% were okay with it, and 30% felt it would be okay at least 6 months after the patient-doctor relationship ended.
Dr. May said a romantic relationship is “inappropriate while the professional relationship is active and even for some time afterward. There’s a professional dynamic that needs to be maintained, a sense of objectivity.
“Plus, the physician is in a power relationship to the patient where there’s a sense of gratefulness or vulnerability that makes the patient unable to say no to a personal relationship,” Dr. May said.
Dr. May is not sure 6 months after they stop being your patient is long enough. “I’d think something like 2 years as a minimum. If I were your oncologist and helped save your life, it may never be appropriate,” Dr. May said.
In other ethical questions, one-quarter of cardiologists would report a doctor who seems impaired by drugs, alcohol, or illness, and 62% would do so only after speaking to him/her first.
“Our obligation is to do no harm to patients, and the professional standards and integrity of the profession are at stake,” one survey respondent said.
Another said, “A colleague who recognizes the problem and after private discussion enters a treatment program is often better served than by the often excessively harsh management by the state medical board.”
But when it comes to random alcohol and drug tests for cardiologists, 51% are not in favor, 31% are in favor, and 18% said it depends.
Dr. Caplan thinks that physicians face enough responsibility to patients to warrant such testing randomly but infrequently. “Doctors may feel like they’re being treated unprofessionally, like drug addicts, or question the accuracy of testing,” he noted. But he tilts instead toward “the moral fight to protect patient safety and trying to drive down malpractice costs.”
When it comes to reporting a colleague for sexual harassment or bullying, 71% of cardiologists said yes, they would report such behavior; only 7% would not, while 22% said it depends.
“If we ignore bad behavior such as this by our colleagues, then we are hurting our profession,” one physician said.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A purple warrior rises in the battle against diabetes
One-eyed, one-horned, flying purple veggie eater
Big Fruits and Vegetables is at it again. You notice how they’re always like “Oh, vegetables are good for your health,” and “Eating fruits every day makes you live longer,” but come on. It’s a marketing ploy, leading us astray from our personal savior, McDonald’s.
Just look at this latest bit of research: According to researchers from Finland, eating purple vegetables can protect against diabetes. Considering nearly 40 million Americans have diabetes (and nearly 100 million have prediabetes), anything to reduce the incidence of diabetes (people with diabetes account for one-fourth of every dollar spent in U.S. health care) would be beneficial. So, let’s humor the fruits and veggies people this time and hear them out.
It all comes down to a chemical called anthocyanin, which is a pigment that gives fruits and vegetables such as blueberries, radishes, and red cabbages their purplish color. Anthocyanin also has probiotic and anti-inflammatory effects, meaning it can help improve intestinal lining health and regulate glucose and lipid metabolic pathways. Obviously, good things if you want to avoid diabetes.
The investigators also found that, while standard anthocyanin was beneficial, acylated anthocyanin (which has an acyl group added to the sugar molecules of anthocyanin) is really what you want to go for. The acylated version, found in abundance in purple potatoes, purple carrots, radishes, and red cabbages, is tougher to digest, but the positive effects it has in the body are enhanced over the standard version.
Now, this all a compelling bit of research, but at the end of the day, you’re still eating fruits and vegetables, and we are red-blooded Americans here. We don’t do healthy foods. Although, if you were to dye our burgers with anthocyanin and make them purple, you’d have our attention. Purple is our favorite color.
Manuka honey better as building material than antibiotic
Milk, according to the old saying, builds strong bones, but when it comes to patients with bone loss caused by various medical reasons, researchers found that manuka honey, produced only in New Zealand and some parts of Australia, may also do the job. They soaked collagen scaffolds used for bone implants in various concentrations of the honey and found that 5% led to higher mineral formation and osteoprotegerin production, which suggests increased bone production.
But, and this is a pretty big one, the other half of the study – testing manuka honey’s ability to ward off bacteria – wasn’t so successful. Bone implants, apparently, count for almost half of all hospital-acquired infections, which obviously can put a damper on the healing process. The hope was that a biomaterial would be more effective than something like metal in lessening bacteria formation. Nope.
When the researchers soaked paper disks in honey and added them to cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, none of the various concentrations stopped bacterial growth in the scaffolding, even when they added antibiotics.
The sticky conclusion, you could say, is more bitter than sweet.
It may sound like Korn, but can it play ‘Freak on a Leash’?
Like all right-thinking Americans, we love corn, corn-based products, and almost corn. Corn on the cob grilled in the husk? Mmm. Plus, we’re big fans of the band Korn. Also, we once had a reporter here named Tim Kirn. And don’t even get us started with Karn. Best Family Feud host ever.
But what about Quorn? Oh sure, the fungi-based meat alternative is full of yummy mycoprotein, but can it prevent colorectal cancer? Can we add Quorn to our favorites list? Let’s see what Science has to say.
Researchers at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, fed a group of 20 men some meat (240 g/day) for 2 weeks – hopefully, they were allowed to eat some other food as well – and then gave them the same amount of Quorn, excuse us, fungi-derived mycoprotein equivalents, for 2 more weeks, with a 4-week washout period in between.
Levels of cancer-causing chemicals known as genotoxins fell significantly in the mycoprotein phase but rose during the meat phase. The mycoprotein diet also improved gut health “by increasing the abundance of protective bacteria such as Lactobacilli, Roseburia, and Akkermansia, which are associated with offering protection against chemically induced tumours, inflammation and bowel cancer,” they said in a statement from the university.
The meat phase, on the other hand, resulted in an increase in “gut bacteria linked with issues such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, weight gain and other negative health outcomes,” they noted.
Science, then, seems to approve of Quorn, and that’s good enough for us. We’re adding Quorn to our diet, starting with a fungi-derived mycoproteinburger tonight while we’re watching the Cornell Big Red take the court against their archrivals, the Big Green of Dartmouth College. GO RED!
One-eyed, one-horned, flying purple veggie eater
Big Fruits and Vegetables is at it again. You notice how they’re always like “Oh, vegetables are good for your health,” and “Eating fruits every day makes you live longer,” but come on. It’s a marketing ploy, leading us astray from our personal savior, McDonald’s.
Just look at this latest bit of research: According to researchers from Finland, eating purple vegetables can protect against diabetes. Considering nearly 40 million Americans have diabetes (and nearly 100 million have prediabetes), anything to reduce the incidence of diabetes (people with diabetes account for one-fourth of every dollar spent in U.S. health care) would be beneficial. So, let’s humor the fruits and veggies people this time and hear them out.
It all comes down to a chemical called anthocyanin, which is a pigment that gives fruits and vegetables such as blueberries, radishes, and red cabbages their purplish color. Anthocyanin also has probiotic and anti-inflammatory effects, meaning it can help improve intestinal lining health and regulate glucose and lipid metabolic pathways. Obviously, good things if you want to avoid diabetes.
The investigators also found that, while standard anthocyanin was beneficial, acylated anthocyanin (which has an acyl group added to the sugar molecules of anthocyanin) is really what you want to go for. The acylated version, found in abundance in purple potatoes, purple carrots, radishes, and red cabbages, is tougher to digest, but the positive effects it has in the body are enhanced over the standard version.
Now, this all a compelling bit of research, but at the end of the day, you’re still eating fruits and vegetables, and we are red-blooded Americans here. We don’t do healthy foods. Although, if you were to dye our burgers with anthocyanin and make them purple, you’d have our attention. Purple is our favorite color.
Manuka honey better as building material than antibiotic
Milk, according to the old saying, builds strong bones, but when it comes to patients with bone loss caused by various medical reasons, researchers found that manuka honey, produced only in New Zealand and some parts of Australia, may also do the job. They soaked collagen scaffolds used for bone implants in various concentrations of the honey and found that 5% led to higher mineral formation and osteoprotegerin production, which suggests increased bone production.
But, and this is a pretty big one, the other half of the study – testing manuka honey’s ability to ward off bacteria – wasn’t so successful. Bone implants, apparently, count for almost half of all hospital-acquired infections, which obviously can put a damper on the healing process. The hope was that a biomaterial would be more effective than something like metal in lessening bacteria formation. Nope.
When the researchers soaked paper disks in honey and added them to cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, none of the various concentrations stopped bacterial growth in the scaffolding, even when they added antibiotics.
The sticky conclusion, you could say, is more bitter than sweet.
It may sound like Korn, but can it play ‘Freak on a Leash’?
Like all right-thinking Americans, we love corn, corn-based products, and almost corn. Corn on the cob grilled in the husk? Mmm. Plus, we’re big fans of the band Korn. Also, we once had a reporter here named Tim Kirn. And don’t even get us started with Karn. Best Family Feud host ever.
But what about Quorn? Oh sure, the fungi-based meat alternative is full of yummy mycoprotein, but can it prevent colorectal cancer? Can we add Quorn to our favorites list? Let’s see what Science has to say.
Researchers at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, fed a group of 20 men some meat (240 g/day) for 2 weeks – hopefully, they were allowed to eat some other food as well – and then gave them the same amount of Quorn, excuse us, fungi-derived mycoprotein equivalents, for 2 more weeks, with a 4-week washout period in between.
Levels of cancer-causing chemicals known as genotoxins fell significantly in the mycoprotein phase but rose during the meat phase. The mycoprotein diet also improved gut health “by increasing the abundance of protective bacteria such as Lactobacilli, Roseburia, and Akkermansia, which are associated with offering protection against chemically induced tumours, inflammation and bowel cancer,” they said in a statement from the university.
The meat phase, on the other hand, resulted in an increase in “gut bacteria linked with issues such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, weight gain and other negative health outcomes,” they noted.
Science, then, seems to approve of Quorn, and that’s good enough for us. We’re adding Quorn to our diet, starting with a fungi-derived mycoproteinburger tonight while we’re watching the Cornell Big Red take the court against their archrivals, the Big Green of Dartmouth College. GO RED!
One-eyed, one-horned, flying purple veggie eater
Big Fruits and Vegetables is at it again. You notice how they’re always like “Oh, vegetables are good for your health,” and “Eating fruits every day makes you live longer,” but come on. It’s a marketing ploy, leading us astray from our personal savior, McDonald’s.
Just look at this latest bit of research: According to researchers from Finland, eating purple vegetables can protect against diabetes. Considering nearly 40 million Americans have diabetes (and nearly 100 million have prediabetes), anything to reduce the incidence of diabetes (people with diabetes account for one-fourth of every dollar spent in U.S. health care) would be beneficial. So, let’s humor the fruits and veggies people this time and hear them out.
It all comes down to a chemical called anthocyanin, which is a pigment that gives fruits and vegetables such as blueberries, radishes, and red cabbages their purplish color. Anthocyanin also has probiotic and anti-inflammatory effects, meaning it can help improve intestinal lining health and regulate glucose and lipid metabolic pathways. Obviously, good things if you want to avoid diabetes.
The investigators also found that, while standard anthocyanin was beneficial, acylated anthocyanin (which has an acyl group added to the sugar molecules of anthocyanin) is really what you want to go for. The acylated version, found in abundance in purple potatoes, purple carrots, radishes, and red cabbages, is tougher to digest, but the positive effects it has in the body are enhanced over the standard version.
Now, this all a compelling bit of research, but at the end of the day, you’re still eating fruits and vegetables, and we are red-blooded Americans here. We don’t do healthy foods. Although, if you were to dye our burgers with anthocyanin and make them purple, you’d have our attention. Purple is our favorite color.
Manuka honey better as building material than antibiotic
Milk, according to the old saying, builds strong bones, but when it comes to patients with bone loss caused by various medical reasons, researchers found that manuka honey, produced only in New Zealand and some parts of Australia, may also do the job. They soaked collagen scaffolds used for bone implants in various concentrations of the honey and found that 5% led to higher mineral formation and osteoprotegerin production, which suggests increased bone production.
But, and this is a pretty big one, the other half of the study – testing manuka honey’s ability to ward off bacteria – wasn’t so successful. Bone implants, apparently, count for almost half of all hospital-acquired infections, which obviously can put a damper on the healing process. The hope was that a biomaterial would be more effective than something like metal in lessening bacteria formation. Nope.
When the researchers soaked paper disks in honey and added them to cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, none of the various concentrations stopped bacterial growth in the scaffolding, even when they added antibiotics.
The sticky conclusion, you could say, is more bitter than sweet.
It may sound like Korn, but can it play ‘Freak on a Leash’?
Like all right-thinking Americans, we love corn, corn-based products, and almost corn. Corn on the cob grilled in the husk? Mmm. Plus, we’re big fans of the band Korn. Also, we once had a reporter here named Tim Kirn. And don’t even get us started with Karn. Best Family Feud host ever.
But what about Quorn? Oh sure, the fungi-based meat alternative is full of yummy mycoprotein, but can it prevent colorectal cancer? Can we add Quorn to our favorites list? Let’s see what Science has to say.
Researchers at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, fed a group of 20 men some meat (240 g/day) for 2 weeks – hopefully, they were allowed to eat some other food as well – and then gave them the same amount of Quorn, excuse us, fungi-derived mycoprotein equivalents, for 2 more weeks, with a 4-week washout period in between.
Levels of cancer-causing chemicals known as genotoxins fell significantly in the mycoprotein phase but rose during the meat phase. The mycoprotein diet also improved gut health “by increasing the abundance of protective bacteria such as Lactobacilli, Roseburia, and Akkermansia, which are associated with offering protection against chemically induced tumours, inflammation and bowel cancer,” they said in a statement from the university.
The meat phase, on the other hand, resulted in an increase in “gut bacteria linked with issues such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, weight gain and other negative health outcomes,” they noted.
Science, then, seems to approve of Quorn, and that’s good enough for us. We’re adding Quorn to our diet, starting with a fungi-derived mycoproteinburger tonight while we’re watching the Cornell Big Red take the court against their archrivals, the Big Green of Dartmouth College. GO RED!
Could your patients benefit? New trials in lung cancer
Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.
Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.
Untreated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Adult patients with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV disease without actionable genomic alterations can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study testing the survival advantage of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) (AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo). Dato-DXd is one of a half dozen experimental antibody-drug conjugates that target TROP2, a transmembrane glycoprotein that is overexpressed in several solid tumors, including NSCLC. One group of participants will receive an intravenous (IV) infusion of Dato-DXd plus durvalumab (Imfinzi) for up to 4 years, and over the first 12 weeks, they will receive four rounds of IV carboplatin (Paraplatin). The other group will receive IV infusions of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) every 3 weeks plus a combination of standard IV chemotherapy appropriate for the patient’s histology (nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC). In the United States, centers in Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas started recruiting in December 2020; trial sites are planned in 16 other states and 23 other countries. The trialists plan to enroll 1,000 participants. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the primary endpoints; quality of life (QoL) is not being tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Adult patients in this clinical situation without actionable genomic alterations as well as those with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of < 50% are eligible to participate in a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial of Dato-DXd in combination with pembrolizumab, with or without chemotherapy. One group of participants will receive IV Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. For the second group of patients, IV platinum chemotherapy will be added to the Dato-DXd and pembrolizumab for the first four rounds of treatment. The third group of individuals make up the comparator arm and will receive thrice-weekly IV pembrolizumab, pemetrexed (Alimta), plus platinum chemotherapy. All participants will be treated for approximately 2.5 years or until disease progression or death. The trial began recruiting 975 participants in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in Japan in January 2023. The primary endpoints are OS and PFS; QoL will not be assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this cancer who have a TPS of > 50% can also receive an antibody-drug conjugate targeting TROP2 in combination with pembrolizumab. This time, the product is sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy). The randomized, open-label phase 3 trial is testing whether the two drugs in combination improve survival and slow progression better than pembrolizumab alone. For approximately 2 years, one group of people in the trial will receive IV pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The other group, in addition to the pembrolizumab, will receive IV sacituzumab govitecan weekly for 2 weeks then 1 week off until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or death. Study sites in the states of Florida and Georgia, and in Australia, Taiwan, and Turkey, opened in February 2023 with the aim of recruiting 614 participants. Overall survival over 4 years and PFS are the primary outcomes. QoL is a secondary outcome. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Unresectable metastatic NSCLC. Individuals with this type of lung cancer are being recruited for a nonrandomized, phase 1/2 study to determine whether a combination of amivantamab (Rybrevant) and capmatinib (Tabrecta) is tolerable and more effective than either therapy alone. The two drugs inhibit different stages of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), a step in cell development that is crucial for metastasis because it enhances cell mobility, invasion, and resistance to apoptosis. In the phase 1 study, participants will start with twice-daily tablets of capmatinib and IV amivantamab once weekly for 4 weeks then every 2 weeks. Doses will be adjusted on the basis of toxicities. In phase 2, a new group of participants will receive the refined doses for up to 2 years until progression or death. The study opened at the Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation in Whittier, Calif., in December 2020 with the aim of recruiting 161 participants. Sites are gearing up in five more U.S. states and in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Objective response rate is the primary outcome of the phase 2 study, with OS and QoL as secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
Locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR-exon-20 insertion mutations. Adults with this diagnosis who have not yet been treated and are not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy are sought for a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial testing whether investigational EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor furmonertinib (from ArriVent) is more effective than chemotherapy for first-line treatment. Chemotherapy is currently standard of care in this indication with targeted therapies amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) and mobocertinib succinate (Exkivity) as second-line options. Individuals in the trial will take daily tablets of furmonertinib or platinum-based IV chemotherapy for 32 months or until disease progression, whichever comes first. The study opened in December in sites across 15 U.S. states. Centers in a further nine states are gearing up, with the aim of enrolling a total of 375 people. The primary outcome is PFS. QoL and OS at 5 years are secondary outcomes. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum chemotherapy and at least one targeted treatment. Adults aged 70 or younger with this type of lung cancer are eligible for a National Cancer Institute phase 2 investigation of autologous T-cell receptor (TCR) gene therapy. Unlike CAR T-cell therapy, which only reaches the 20% of cancer neoantigens that are expressed extracellularly, TCR technology can target the 80% of abnormal proteins that are expressed inside cancer cells. Participants will receive a single infusion of their own engineered T cells. They will attend follow-up visits every 3-6 months for 3 years, then join a long-term study in which they will be followed for 12 more years. The National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Md., started recruiting for the trial’s 210 participants with one of a selection of solid cancers in February 2023. Response rate measured by objective tumor regression is the primary endpoint. OS and QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.
All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Editor’s note: This article was changed on 24 February to remove an incorrect reference to osimertinib.