Business of Medicine

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

You’ve been sued for medical malpractice. If you are a physician in the United States, that is not an unlikely scenario.

An analysis by the American Medical Association shows that almost half of all physicians are sued by the time they reach 54. In some specialties, such as ob.gyn., one is almost guaranteed to be sued at some point.

But that’s what medical malpractice insurance is for, right? Your medical malpractice insurer will assign an attorney to take care of you and help you through this situation. Won’t they?

Maybe so, but the attorney and the claims representative your insurer assigns to your case may have a different idea about how to proceed than you do. Though the defense attorney assigned to you represents you, he or she gets paid by the insurance carrier.

This can create a conflict when your defense counsel and your insurance claims representative aim to take your case in a direction you don’t like.

Issues dividing defendant physicians, their insurers, and insurance company lawyers who represent them often arise from conflicting perspectives on risk, financial considerations, and reputation damage. Disagreements might include:

• Choice of expert witnesses
• Tactical decisions related to trial strategy
• Public relations considerations
• Admissions of liability
• Allocation of resources

To Settle or Not?

One of the most challenging — and common — disagreements is whether to settle the case.

Sometimes a malpractice insurer wants to settle the case against the defendant doctor’s wishes. Or the doctor wants to settle but is pushed into going to trial. In the following case, one doctor had to face the consequences of a decision he didn’t even make.
 

The Underlying Medical Malpractice Case

Dr. D was sued by a patient who had allegedly called Dr. D’s office six times in 2 days complaining of intermittent chest pain.

Dr. D had been swamped with patients and couldn’t squeeze this patient in for an office visit, but he did call back. The patient later claimed that during the call he told the doctor he was suffering from chest pain. The doctor recalled that the patient had complained of abdominal discomfort that began after he had exercised.

The physician wrote a prescription for an ECG at the local hospital and called to ensure that the patient could just walk in. The ECG was allegedly abnormal but was not read as representing an impending or current heart attack. Later that evening, however, the patient went to the emergency department of another hospital where it was confirmed that he had suffered a heart attack. The patient underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement to address a blockage in his left anterior descending artery.

The patient subsequently sued Dr. D and the hospital where he had the original ECG. Dr. D contacted his medical malpractice insurance company. The insurance company assigned an attorney to represent Dr. D. Discovery in the case began.

The plaintiff’s own medical expert testified in a deposition that there was no way for the heart attack to have been prevented and that the treatment would have been the same either way. But Dr. D could not find a record of the phone calls with the patient, and he had not noted his conversation the patient in their medical records.

Dr. D held a policy for $1 million, and his state had a fund that would kick in an additional $1 million. But the plaintiffs demanded $4 million to settle.

A month before trial, the plaintiff’s attorney sent a threatening letter to Dr. D’s attorney warning him that Dr. D was underinsured and suggesting that it would be in the physician’s best interests to settle.

“I want to stress to you that it is not my desire to harm your client’s reputation or to destroy his business,” wrote the plaintiff’s attorney. “However, now is the time to avoid consequences such as these by making a good faith effort to get this case resolved.”

The letter went on to note that the defense attorney should give Dr. D a copy of the letter so that everyone would be aware of the potential consequences of an award against Dr. D in excess of his limits of insurance coverage. The plaintiff’s attorney even suggested that Dr. D should retain personal counsel.

Dr. D’s defense attorney downplayed the letter and assured him that there was no reason to worry.

Meanwhile the case inched closer to trial.

The codefendant hospital settled with the plaintiff on the night before jury selection, leaving Dr. D in the uncomfortable position of being the only defendant in the case. At this point, Dr. D decided he would like to settle, and he sent his attorney an email telling him so. But the attorney instead referred him to an insurance company claims.

Just days before the trial was to start, Dr. D repeatedly told the claims representative assigned to his claim that he did not want to go to trial but rather wanted to settle. The representative told Dr. D that he had no choice in whether the action settled.

A committee at the insurance company had decided to proceed with the trial rather than settle.

The trial proved a painful debacle for Dr. D. His attorney’s idea of showing a “gotcha” video of the allegedly permanently injured plaintiff carrying a large, heavy box backfired when the jury was shown by the plaintiff that the box actually contained ice cream cones and weighed very little.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff offered to settle for $1 million. On the first day of trial, they lowered that amount to $750,000, yet the defense attorney did not settle the case, and it proceeded to a jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff over $4 million — well in excess of Dr. D’s policy limits.
 

The Follow-up

Dr. D was horrified, but the insurance company claims representative said the insurer would promptly offer $2 million in available insurance coverage to settle the case post verdict. This did not happen. Instead, the insurer chose to appeal the verdict against Dr. D’s wishes.

Ultimately, Dr. D was forced to hire his own lawyer. He ultimately sued the insurance company for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insurance company eventually attempted to settle with the plaintiffs’ counsel, but the plaintiff refused to accept the available insurance coverage. The insurance carrier still has not posted the entire appeal bond. The case is still pending.
 

Protecting Yourself

The lesson from Dr. D’s experience: Understand that the insurance company is not your friend. It’s a business looking out for its own interests.

The plaintiff’s attorney was absolutely correct in suggesting that Dr. D retain his own attorney to represent his own interests. You should hire your own lawyer when:

• You disagree with your insurer on how to proceed in a case.
• You receive a demand that exceeds your available insurance coverage or for damages that may not be covered by your policy, such as punitive damages.
• Your insurance carrier attempts to deny insurance coverage for your claim or sends you a letter stating that it is “reserving its rights” not to cover or to limit coverage for your claim.

Retaining independent counsel protects your interests, not those of your insurance company.

Independent counsel can give you a second opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your claim, help you prepare for your deposition, and attend court dates with you to ensure that you are completely protected.

Independent counsel can challenge your insurance company’s decision to deny or limit your insurance coverage and ensure that you receive all of the benefits to which you are entitled under your insurance policy. Some policies may include an independent lawyer to be paid for by your insurance carrier in case of a conflicts.

The most important takeaway? Your medical malpractice insurance carrier is not your friend, so act accordingly in times of conflict.

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

MADRID — In spirited presentations at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Louis J. Aronne, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, made a compelling case that the next generation of obesity medications will make bariatric surgery obsolete, and Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London in England, made an equally compelling case that they will not.

In fact, Dr. Rubino predicted that “metabolic” surgery — new nomenclature reflecting the power of surgery to reduce not only obesity, but also other metabolic conditions, over the long term — will continue and could even increase in years to come.
 

‘Medical Treatment Will Dominate’

“Obesity treatment is the superhero of treating metabolic disease because it can defeat all of the bad guys at once, not just one, like the other treatments,” Dr. Aronne told meeting attendees. “If you treat somebody’s cholesterol, you’re just treating their cholesterol, and you may actually increase their risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). You treat their blood pressure, you don’t treat their glucose and you don’t treat their lipids — the list goes on and on and on. But by treating obesity, if you can get enough weight loss, you can get all those things at once.”

He pointed to the SELECT trial, which showed that treating obesity with a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist reduced major adverse cardiovascular events as well as death from any cause, results in line with those from other modes of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD) or lipid lowering, he said. “But we get much more with these drugs, including positive effects on heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and a 73% reduction in T2D. So, we’re now on the verge of a major change in the way we manage metabolic disease.”

Dr. Aronne drew a parallel between treating obesity and the historic way of treating hypertension. Years ago, he said, “we waited too long to treat people. We waited until they had severe hypertension that in many cases was irreversible. What would you prefer to do now for obesity — have the patient lose weight with a medicine that is proven to reduce complications or wait until they develop diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and then have them undergo surgery to treat that?”

Looking ahead, “the trend could be to treat obesity before it gets out of hand,” he suggested. Treatment might start in people with a body mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m², who would be treated to a target BMI of 25. “That’s only a 10% or so change, but our goal would be to keep them in the normal range so they never go above that target. In fact, I think we’re going to be looking at people with severe obesity in a few years and saying, ‘I can’t believe someone didn’t treat that guy earlier.’ What’s going to happen to bariatric surgery if no one gets to a higher weight?”

The plethora of current weight-loss drugs and the large group on the horizon mean that if someone doesn’t respond to one drug, there will be plenty of other choices, Dr. Aronne continued. People will be referred for surgery, but possibly only after they’ve not responded to medical treatment — or just the opposite. “In the United States, it’s much cheaper to have surgery, and I bet the insurance companies are going to make people have surgery before they can get the medicines,” he acknowledged.

A recent report from Morgan Stanley suggests that the global market for the newer weight-loss drugs could increase by 15-fold over the next 5 years as their benefits expand beyond weight loss and that as much as 9% of the US population will be taking the drugs by 2035, Dr. Aronne said, adding that he thinks 9% is an underestimate. By contrast, the number of patients treated by his team’s surgical program is down about 20%.

“I think it’s very clear that medical treatment is going to dominate,” he concluded. “But, it’s also possible that surgery could go up because so many people are going to be coming for medical therapy that we may wind up referring more for surgical therapy.”
 

‘Surgery Is Saving Lives’

Dr. Rubino is convinced that anti-obesity drugs will not make surgery obsolete, “but it will not be business as usual,” he told meeting attendees. “In fact, I think these drugs will expedite a process that is already ongoing — a transformation of bariatric into metabolic surgery.”

“Bariatric surgery will go down in history as one of the biggest missed opportunities that we, as medical professionals, have seen over the past many years,” he said. “It has been shown beyond any doubt to reduce all-cause mortality — in other words, it saves lives,” and it’s also cost effective and improves quality of life. Yet, fewer than 1% of people globally who meet the criteria actually get the surgery.

Many clinicians don’t inform patients about the treatment and don’t refer them for it, he said. “That would be equivalent to having surgery for CVD [cardiovascular disease], cancer, or other important diseases available but not being accessed as they should be.”

A big reason for the dearth of procedures is that people have unrealistic expectations about diet and exercise interventions for weight loss, he said. His team’s survey, presented at the 26th World Congress of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, showed that 43% of respondents believed diet and exercise was the best treatment for severe obesity (BMI > 35). A more recent survey asked which among several choices was the most effective weight-loss intervention, and again a large proportion “believed wrongly that diet and exercise is most effective — more so than drugs or surgery — despite plenty of evidence that this is not the case.”

In this context, he said, “any surgery, no matter how safe or effective, would never be very popular.” If obesity is viewed as a modifiable risk factor, patients may say they’ll think about it for 6 months. In contrast, “nobody will tell you ‘I will think about it’ if you tell them they need gallbladder surgery to get rid of gallstone pain.”

Although drugs are available to treat obesity, none of them are curative, and if they’re stopped, the weight comes back, Dr. Rubino pointed out. “Efficacy of drugs is measured in weeks or months, whereas efficacy of surgery is measured in decades of durability — in the case of bariatric surgery, 10-20 years. That’s why bariatric surgery will remain an option,” he said. “It’s not just preventing disease, it’s resolving ongoing disease.”

Furthermore, bariatric surgery is showing value for people with established T2D, whereas in the past, it was mainly considered to be a weight-loss intervention for younger, healthier patients, he said. “In my practice, we’re operating more often in people with T2D, even those at higher risk for anesthesia and surgery — eg, patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, on dialysis — and we’re still able to maintain the same safety with minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery that we had with healthier patients.”

A vote held at the end of the session revealed that the audience was split about half and half in favor of drugs making bariatric surgery obsolete or not.

“I think we may have to duke it out now,” Dr. Aronne quipped.

Dr. Aronne disclosed being a consultant, speaker, and adviser for and receiving research support from Altimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Senda, UnitedHealth Group, Versanis, and others; he has ownership interests in ERX, Intellihealth, Jamieson, Kallyope, Skye Bioscience, Veru, and others; and he is on the board of directors of ERX, Jamieson Wellness, and Intellihealth/FlyteHealth. Dr. Rubino disclosed receiving research and educational grants from Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic; he is on the scientific advisory board/data safety advisory board for Keyron, Morphic Medical, and GT Metabolic Solutions; he receives speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Ethicon, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; and he is president of the nonprofit Metabolic Health Institute.

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

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at [email protected].

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at [email protected].

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scenario I. Let’s say you wake with a collection of symptoms. None of them is concerning, but the combination seems a bit unusual, or at least confusing. You would like to speak to your PCP, whom you have known for a long time, and ask for either reassurance or advice on whether you should make an appointment. However, your experience with the front office’s organization tells you that the quick 4-minute conversation you’re looking for is not going to happen easily.

You have that robotic phone message memorized. It begins suggesting that you think you have an emergency to call 911. Then it reminds you that if have a question about COVID to press “2,” which will take you to a recorded message and eventually link you to a triage nurse if the recording doesn’t answer your questions. If you need a prescription refill you should press “3.” If you are a doctor’s office and wish speak to the doctor press “4.” If you know you need an appointment press “5.” And finally if you have a question press “6” and leave a message and a nurse will get back to you before the end of the day.

The good news is that your PCP’s office is good to its word and will return your call the same day, but the bad news is that it is likely to be well into the afternoon. And, while you don’t consider your symptoms life-threatening, you don’t want getting an answer to be an exercise in schedule disruption.

You were a doctor before you retired and you still have an “office.” It’s really more of a combination den and studio. So, technically you are a doctor’s office wanting to speak to the doctor. And, you know that pressing “4” will get you the answer you are looking for in a matter of minutes.



Scenario II. Your spouse, or your aunt, or the elderly widow next door asks you to accompany her at an upcoming doctor’s visit because she had been having trouble understanding the physician’s plan regarding further diagnosis and possible treatment. She believes having you along as kind of an interpreter/advocate would be a big help. Do you agree and do you make any stipulations?



Scenario III. Your PCP has referred you to a specialist. You are filling out the previsit form(s). Do you list your occupation as “retired physician” or just “retired”? Or just leave it blank?


Whether you deserve it or not, graduating from medical school has conferred on you a specialness in the eyes of many people. It is assumed you are smarter than the average bear and in taking the Hippocratic oath you have joined an elite club. And, with that membership comes some special undefined privileges.

But with that specialness there are are some downsides. For example, in some states being a physician once allowed you to have a license plate with “MD” in the number sequence. Sometimes that helped you avoid the occasional parking ticket. That is until folks realized the “MD” made you a target for car thieves and drug seekers who mistakenly believe we all carry drugs in our glove compartments.

So what about that first scenario? Do you press “4” to jump yourself to the head of the queue and avoid the inconvenience of having to wait for a reasonably timely response from your PCP? After all, you are fellow physicians and you’ve known her for a decade or two. If you are retired is your time any more valuable than that of her other patients? If you are still in active practice you can argue that getting special attention will benefit your patients. But, if it’s a weekend and you are off it’s a bit harder to rationalize special treatment. Playing the doctor card in this situation is your own decision but you must be prepared to shoulder the perceptions by your PCP and her staff as well as your own sense of fairness.

The other two scenarios are much different. In neither are you risking the impression that you are asking for a favor. But, they each have their downsides. In the second scenario you are doing someone a favor to act as an interpreter. How could this have downside? Unfortunately, what happens too often in situations like this is that when the patient’s physician learns that you are a fellow physician, the rest of the visit becomes a dialogue in doctor-speak between the two physicians with the patient sitting by as an observer. In the end this discussion may benefit the patient by creating a treatment plan that the patient can understand either because they overheard it or more likely because you eventually explained it to them.

On the other the hand, this doctor-to-doctor chat has done nothing to build a doctor-patient relationship that had obviously been lacking something. In situations like this it is probably better to keep the doctor card up your sleeve to be played at the end of the visit or maybe not at all. Before agreeing to be an interpreter/advocate, ask the patient to avoid mentioning that you are a physician. Instead, ask that she introduce you as a friend or relative that she has asked to come along to serve as a memory bank. During the visit it may be helpful to occasionally interject and suggest that the patient ask a question that hasn’t been adequately addressed. While some physicians may be upset when they belatedly find you have not revealed up front that you are a physician, I find this a harmless omission that has the benefit of improving patient care.

The final scenario — in which you are the patient — is likely to occur more often as you get older. When filling out a previsit form, I often simply put retired or leave it blank. But, how I answer the question often seems to be irrelevant because I have learned that physicians and their staff read those boilerplate forms so cursorily that even when I report my status as “retired physician” everyone seems surprised if and when it later comes to light.

My rationale in keeping the doctor card close to my vest in these situations is that I want to be addressed without any assumptions regarding my medical knowledge, which in my situation is well over half a century old and spotty at best. I don’t want my physicians to say “I’m sure you understand.” Because I often don’t. I would like them to learn about who I am just as I hope they would other patients. I won’t be offended if they “talk down” to me. If this specialist is as good as I’ve heard she is, I want to hear her full performance, not one edited for fellow and former physicians.

There have been numerous times when patients have made me feel special because of what I have done in my role as a physician. But, that is a kind specialness that must be earned. It doesn’t arrive gold edged with a list of special privileges. If it comes with any extras, they are risks that must be avoided.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Scenario I. Let’s say you wake with a collection of symptoms. None of them is concerning, but the combination seems a bit unusual, or at least confusing. You would like to speak to your PCP, whom you have known for a long time, and ask for either reassurance or advice on whether you should make an appointment. However, your experience with the front office’s organization tells you that the quick 4-minute conversation you’re looking for is not going to happen easily.

You have that robotic phone message memorized. It begins suggesting that you think you have an emergency to call 911. Then it reminds you that if have a question about COVID to press “2,” which will take you to a recorded message and eventually link you to a triage nurse if the recording doesn’t answer your questions. If you need a prescription refill you should press “3.” If you are a doctor’s office and wish speak to the doctor press “4.” If you know you need an appointment press “5.” And finally if you have a question press “6” and leave a message and a nurse will get back to you before the end of the day.

The good news is that your PCP’s office is good to its word and will return your call the same day, but the bad news is that it is likely to be well into the afternoon. And, while you don’t consider your symptoms life-threatening, you don’t want getting an answer to be an exercise in schedule disruption.

You were a doctor before you retired and you still have an “office.” It’s really more of a combination den and studio. So, technically you are a doctor’s office wanting to speak to the doctor. And, you know that pressing “4” will get you the answer you are looking for in a matter of minutes.



Scenario II. Your spouse, or your aunt, or the elderly widow next door asks you to accompany her at an upcoming doctor’s visit because she had been having trouble understanding the physician’s plan regarding further diagnosis and possible treatment. She believes having you along as kind of an interpreter/advocate would be a big help. Do you agree and do you make any stipulations?



Scenario III. Your PCP has referred you to a specialist. You are filling out the previsit form(s). Do you list your occupation as “retired physician” or just “retired”? Or just leave it blank?


Whether you deserve it or not, graduating from medical school has conferred on you a specialness in the eyes of many people. It is assumed you are smarter than the average bear and in taking the Hippocratic oath you have joined an elite club. And, with that membership comes some special undefined privileges.

But with that specialness there are are some downsides. For example, in some states being a physician once allowed you to have a license plate with “MD” in the number sequence. Sometimes that helped you avoid the occasional parking ticket. That is until folks realized the “MD” made you a target for car thieves and drug seekers who mistakenly believe we all carry drugs in our glove compartments.

So what about that first scenario? Do you press “4” to jump yourself to the head of the queue and avoid the inconvenience of having to wait for a reasonably timely response from your PCP? After all, you are fellow physicians and you’ve known her for a decade or two. If you are retired is your time any more valuable than that of her other patients? If you are still in active practice you can argue that getting special attention will benefit your patients. But, if it’s a weekend and you are off it’s a bit harder to rationalize special treatment. Playing the doctor card in this situation is your own decision but you must be prepared to shoulder the perceptions by your PCP and her staff as well as your own sense of fairness.

The other two scenarios are much different. In neither are you risking the impression that you are asking for a favor. But, they each have their downsides. In the second scenario you are doing someone a favor to act as an interpreter. How could this have downside? Unfortunately, what happens too often in situations like this is that when the patient’s physician learns that you are a fellow physician, the rest of the visit becomes a dialogue in doctor-speak between the two physicians with the patient sitting by as an observer. In the end this discussion may benefit the patient by creating a treatment plan that the patient can understand either because they overheard it or more likely because you eventually explained it to them.

On the other the hand, this doctor-to-doctor chat has done nothing to build a doctor-patient relationship that had obviously been lacking something. In situations like this it is probably better to keep the doctor card up your sleeve to be played at the end of the visit or maybe not at all. Before agreeing to be an interpreter/advocate, ask the patient to avoid mentioning that you are a physician. Instead, ask that she introduce you as a friend or relative that she has asked to come along to serve as a memory bank. During the visit it may be helpful to occasionally interject and suggest that the patient ask a question that hasn’t been adequately addressed. While some physicians may be upset when they belatedly find you have not revealed up front that you are a physician, I find this a harmless omission that has the benefit of improving patient care.

The final scenario — in which you are the patient — is likely to occur more often as you get older. When filling out a previsit form, I often simply put retired or leave it blank. But, how I answer the question often seems to be irrelevant because I have learned that physicians and their staff read those boilerplate forms so cursorily that even when I report my status as “retired physician” everyone seems surprised if and when it later comes to light.

My rationale in keeping the doctor card close to my vest in these situations is that I want to be addressed without any assumptions regarding my medical knowledge, which in my situation is well over half a century old and spotty at best. I don’t want my physicians to say “I’m sure you understand.” Because I often don’t. I would like them to learn about who I am just as I hope they would other patients. I won’t be offended if they “talk down” to me. If this specialist is as good as I’ve heard she is, I want to hear her full performance, not one edited for fellow and former physicians.

There have been numerous times when patients have made me feel special because of what I have done in my role as a physician. But, that is a kind specialness that must be earned. It doesn’t arrive gold edged with a list of special privileges. If it comes with any extras, they are risks that must be avoided.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Scenario I. Let’s say you wake with a collection of symptoms. None of them is concerning, but the combination seems a bit unusual, or at least confusing. You would like to speak to your PCP, whom you have known for a long time, and ask for either reassurance or advice on whether you should make an appointment. However, your experience with the front office’s organization tells you that the quick 4-minute conversation you’re looking for is not going to happen easily.

You have that robotic phone message memorized. It begins suggesting that you think you have an emergency to call 911. Then it reminds you that if have a question about COVID to press “2,” which will take you to a recorded message and eventually link you to a triage nurse if the recording doesn’t answer your questions. If you need a prescription refill you should press “3.” If you are a doctor’s office and wish speak to the doctor press “4.” If you know you need an appointment press “5.” And finally if you have a question press “6” and leave a message and a nurse will get back to you before the end of the day.

The good news is that your PCP’s office is good to its word and will return your call the same day, but the bad news is that it is likely to be well into the afternoon. And, while you don’t consider your symptoms life-threatening, you don’t want getting an answer to be an exercise in schedule disruption.

You were a doctor before you retired and you still have an “office.” It’s really more of a combination den and studio. So, technically you are a doctor’s office wanting to speak to the doctor. And, you know that pressing “4” will get you the answer you are looking for in a matter of minutes.



Scenario II. Your spouse, or your aunt, or the elderly widow next door asks you to accompany her at an upcoming doctor’s visit because she had been having trouble understanding the physician’s plan regarding further diagnosis and possible treatment. She believes having you along as kind of an interpreter/advocate would be a big help. Do you agree and do you make any stipulations?



Scenario III. Your PCP has referred you to a specialist. You are filling out the previsit form(s). Do you list your occupation as “retired physician” or just “retired”? Or just leave it blank?


Whether you deserve it or not, graduating from medical school has conferred on you a specialness in the eyes of many people. It is assumed you are smarter than the average bear and in taking the Hippocratic oath you have joined an elite club. And, with that membership comes some special undefined privileges.

But with that specialness there are are some downsides. For example, in some states being a physician once allowed you to have a license plate with “MD” in the number sequence. Sometimes that helped you avoid the occasional parking ticket. That is until folks realized the “MD” made you a target for car thieves and drug seekers who mistakenly believe we all carry drugs in our glove compartments.

So what about that first scenario? Do you press “4” to jump yourself to the head of the queue and avoid the inconvenience of having to wait for a reasonably timely response from your PCP? After all, you are fellow physicians and you’ve known her for a decade or two. If you are retired is your time any more valuable than that of her other patients? If you are still in active practice you can argue that getting special attention will benefit your patients. But, if it’s a weekend and you are off it’s a bit harder to rationalize special treatment. Playing the doctor card in this situation is your own decision but you must be prepared to shoulder the perceptions by your PCP and her staff as well as your own sense of fairness.

The other two scenarios are much different. In neither are you risking the impression that you are asking for a favor. But, they each have their downsides. In the second scenario you are doing someone a favor to act as an interpreter. How could this have downside? Unfortunately, what happens too often in situations like this is that when the patient’s physician learns that you are a fellow physician, the rest of the visit becomes a dialogue in doctor-speak between the two physicians with the patient sitting by as an observer. In the end this discussion may benefit the patient by creating a treatment plan that the patient can understand either because they overheard it or more likely because you eventually explained it to them.

On the other the hand, this doctor-to-doctor chat has done nothing to build a doctor-patient relationship that had obviously been lacking something. In situations like this it is probably better to keep the doctor card up your sleeve to be played at the end of the visit or maybe not at all. Before agreeing to be an interpreter/advocate, ask the patient to avoid mentioning that you are a physician. Instead, ask that she introduce you as a friend or relative that she has asked to come along to serve as a memory bank. During the visit it may be helpful to occasionally interject and suggest that the patient ask a question that hasn’t been adequately addressed. While some physicians may be upset when they belatedly find you have not revealed up front that you are a physician, I find this a harmless omission that has the benefit of improving patient care.

The final scenario — in which you are the patient — is likely to occur more often as you get older. When filling out a previsit form, I often simply put retired or leave it blank. But, how I answer the question often seems to be irrelevant because I have learned that physicians and their staff read those boilerplate forms so cursorily that even when I report my status as “retired physician” everyone seems surprised if and when it later comes to light.

My rationale in keeping the doctor card close to my vest in these situations is that I want to be addressed without any assumptions regarding my medical knowledge, which in my situation is well over half a century old and spotty at best. I don’t want my physicians to say “I’m sure you understand.” Because I often don’t. I would like them to learn about who I am just as I hope they would other patients. I won’t be offended if they “talk down” to me. If this specialist is as good as I’ve heard she is, I want to hear her full performance, not one edited for fellow and former physicians.

There have been numerous times when patients have made me feel special because of what I have done in my role as a physician. But, that is a kind specialness that must be earned. It doesn’t arrive gold edged with a list of special privileges. If it comes with any extras, they are risks that must be avoided.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.

On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”

More specifically, the government contended that St. Peter’s Health allegedly violated the False Claims Act by “knowingly submitting” upcoded and nonpayable claims from the oncologist to the Federal Health Care Program.

“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.

On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
 

When It Began

The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims. 

“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.

At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job. 

Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.

Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.

Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause. 

John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
 

$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’

At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million. 

The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims. 

The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.

“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.” 

“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.” 

The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement 

Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020. 

“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.

In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”

Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”

The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.” 

The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025. 
 

A Community’s Support 

Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.

Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well. 

Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.

“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”

Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members. 

Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters. 

“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.

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

As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.

On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”

More specifically, the government contended that St. Peter’s Health allegedly violated the False Claims Act by “knowingly submitting” upcoded and nonpayable claims from the oncologist to the Federal Health Care Program.

“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.

On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
 

When It Began

The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims. 

“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.

At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job. 

Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.

Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.

Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause. 

John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
 

$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’

At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million. 

The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims. 

The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.

“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.” 

“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.” 

The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement 

Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020. 

“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.

In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”

Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”

The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.” 

The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025. 
 

A Community’s Support 

Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.

Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well. 

Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.

“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”

Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members. 

Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters. 

“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.

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

As the deadline nears for a Montana healthcare system to pay what has been called a “jaw-dropping” settlement of nearly $11 million dollars to resolve an alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the legal troubles for the oncologist at the center of the case are ongoing and escalating.

On August 26, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana and other agencies announced the settlement agreement with St. Peter’s Health, a nonprofit healthcare system in Helena, to resolve allegations that it submitted “false claims for payments to federal health care programs for services performed by an oncology doctor.”

More specifically, the government contended that St. Peter’s Health allegedly violated the False Claims Act by “knowingly submitting” upcoded and nonpayable claims from the oncologist to the Federal Health Care Program.

“This settlement would not have been possible without the cooperation of St. Peter’s Health, who voluntarily disclosed the misconduct and cooperated with federal investigators to identify the problem and amount of false billing,” said US Attorney Jesse Laslovich in a press release announcing the settlement.

On the same day, the US Attorney’s Office also filed a civil complaint against the oncologist Thomas Weiner, MD, accusing him of “false health care claims and improper prescribing of controlled substances.” Among the numerous allegations, the civil complaint specifies that Dr. Weiner used his position as the chief medical oncologist at St. Peter’s Health “to order medically unnecessary treatment,” including chemotherapy, blood tests, and imaging, as well as “knowingly falsified records” to double bill for office visits.
 

When It Began

The legal troubles for Dr. Weiner, now 61, started about 4 years ago. Dr. Weiner, who was the sole oncologist at St. Peter’s Health and worked there for 24 years, was suspended in October 2020 and then fired in November 2020 for allegedly providing unnecessary treatments and failing to refer patients to other specialists for care, among other claims. 

“The magnitude of Dr. Weiner’s violations is staggering,” St. Peter’s CEO, Wade Johnson, had said in a December 2020 press statement.

At the time, Dr. Weiner had filed a lawsuit against St. Peter’s Health, claiming he was denied due process and seeking damages and a jury trial. Dr. Weiner’s lead lawyer, J. Devlan Geddes, said it was hard to believe that Dr. Weiner had suddenly become a danger to patients after more than 2 decades on the job. 

Before 2020, Dr. Weiner had a clean record with Montana’s Board of Medical Examiners and had never been the subject of an internal investigation related to quality of care, according to his lawyers. He also served on St. Peter’s board of directors and as chief of medical staff.

Dr. Weiner’s exit from St. Peter’s in 2020 led to an outpouring of support from former patients and community members who formed the Facebook group, “ We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner.” The group soon grew to almost 4000 people.

Four years later, despite the new legal developments, community support for Dr. Weiner has held strong. Supporters continue to have regular rallies outside St. Peter’s Health as well as post messages and personal stories on two Facebook groups now devoted to the cause. 

John Larson, 76, a Helena resident who was treated by Dr. Weiner, echoed a common sentiment from supporters. “I’m completely certain that Tom Weiner is not guilty of what the government is now involved in charging him with,” Dr. Larson said in an interview.
 

$10.8 Million: ‘It’s a Big Number’

At the press conference announcing the recent settlement, Mr. Laslovich recalled a participant describe the total as jaw-dropping, he said in an interview. While there haven’t been many such recent cases in the district, he agreed it’s a big number. The only other recent case he could remember was a 2018 settlement in Kalispell for $24 million. 

The current settlement contends that St. Peter’s Health submitted false claims for payments to federal health care programs related to services performed and referred by Weiner. The infractions allegedly occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020. 

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), St. Peter Health’s “knew, or should have known,” that the oncologist submitted claims for office visits that were coded at a higher level of service than was performed — ie upcoded claims — or did not meet the requirements of a significant, separately identifiable service when performed on the same day chemotherapy was administered — ie non-payable claims. 

The DOJ contended that the healthcare system violated the False Claims Act “by knowingly submitting the upcoded and non-payable” claims to the Federal Health Care Programs. And, as a result, St. Peter’s compensated the oncologist with a salary based on the false claims.

“We had documents showing some of the claims that were being submitted were being done because the doctor wanted more in compensation and of course you can’t do that,” Laslovich said. “For me, the message to providers, and I said this during our press conference, is that coding is critical.” 

“The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only,” the US Attorney’s Office press release clarified, and “there has been no determination of liability.” 

The leadership at St. Peter’s Health issued a press release on August 27, stating it relied on Dr. Weiner’s medical record documentation and billing certification, though declined to comment further on the settlement 

Bob Wade, a partner at Nelson Mullins, Nashville, Tennessee, and lead outside counsel representing St. Peter’s Health on the settlement, said in an interview that the quality issue was first identified in fall 2020. 

“I first conducted a fair market value review for their entire system and noted that he [Weiner] was an extreme outlier with regard to his productivity,” Mr. Wade said.

In a separate statement, Mr. Wade praised the integrity of the health system, saying, “when the medical record documentation and medical necessity issues related to Dr. Weiner were identified, my client, St. Peter’s Health, through the Board and Executive Leadership took decisive action and authorized me to self-report to the Office of Inspector General and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services and fully cooperated with the Department of Justice to reach an amicable settlement.”

Dr. Weiner still faces legal issues. According to the recent civil complaint filed against Weiner, the oncologist allegedly ordered “medically unnecessary treatments” for patients, “knowingly falsified records to double bill for patient office visits,” and “directed these false claims to increase his personal income, with little regard for the potential patient harm his conduct created.”

The complaint goes on to note that Dr. Weiner saw 50-70 patients a day — about four to five times more than most oncologists see in a given day. He allegedly wanted this schedule, the civil complaint said, “because it maximized his income.” 

The civil complaint seeks treble damages, which is triple the actual damages awarded to the plaintiff, as well as civil penalties.

The Montana Board of Medical Examiners shows Dr. Weiner’s license as active, expiring March 31, 2025. 
 

A Community’s Support 

Over the past 4 years, Dr. Weiner has encountered strong, continued support from the community.

Rhonda Good, a Helena resident since 2002, is one of the nearly 4000 members of the “We Stand With Dr. Tom Weiner” public Facebook group. Her son was treated for cancer by Dr. Weiner and is doing well. 

Like other residents, she has strong opinions about the settlement.

“My feeling was, St. Peter’s Health, by settling, basically admitted that if they went to court, they wouldn’t be able to defend their billing procedures and so they settled out of court and that probably saved them money,” she said. “Since I have lived here, St. Peter’s Health billing has been a topic of conversation. And it is not a good conversation.”

Dayna Schwartz, 58, founded a private Facebook support group for Weiner, which she said has about 730 members. 

Ms. Schwartz believes the doctor was set up and she plans to continue the weekly rallies. Those who show up, she said, are only a fraction of the supporters. 

“A lot of the staunch supporters maintain a low profile,” she said, as the healthcare system employs more than 1700 residents.

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

The FDA has launched an investigation of the potential exposure to heavy metals when using tampons, the agency announced.

The move follows the publication earlier this year of concerning laboratory test results that detected the presence of more than a dozen metals in a variety of popular nonorganic and organic tampon products. That small study was a combined effort by researchers from Columbia University, Michigan State University, and the University of California, Berkeley.

“We want the public to know that before tampons can be legally sold in the US, they must meet FDA requirements for safety and effectiveness. Manufacturers must test the product and its component materials before, during, and after manufacturing,” the FDA wrote in the announcement of its own upcoming study. “Before a product is allowed onto the market, biocompatibility testing is undertaken by the manufacturing company, which is part of safety testing, and is reviewed by the FDA prior to market authorization.”

There will be two studies, the FDA said. One of the studies will involve laboratory tests to evaluate metals in tampons and potential exposure people may experience when using them. The other study will be a review of current research regarding the health effects of metals that may be found in tampons.

The earlier study, published by the journal Environment International, found levels of lead in every product the researchers tested and detectable levels of more than a dozen other metals like arsenic and cadmium.

The researchers tested 24 tampon products from a range of major brands as well as store brands. The tampons were purchased at stores and online between September 2022 and March 2023. Metal content tended to differ by whether or not a product was labeled as organic, the researchers reported. Lead concentrations were higher in nonorganic tampons, and organic tampons had higher levels of arsenic.

There is no safe level of lead exposure, the US Environmental Protection Agency says, and the effects are cumulative throughout the course of life. The study authors noted that the average age that girls begin menstruation is 12 years old, and the onset of menopause occurs, on average, at age 51. One study mentioned by the researchers estimated that between 52% and 86% of people who menstruate use tampons.

The FDA plans a more expansive set of analyses than the earlier study, the agency announced.

“While the study found metals in some tampons, the study did not test whether metals are released from tampons when used. It also did not test for metals being released, absorbed into the vaginal lining, and getting into the bloodstream during tampon use,” the FDA announcement stated. “The FDA’s laboratory study will measure the amount of metals that come out of tampons under conditions that more closely mimic normal use.”

The absorbent materials in tampons, like cotton, rayon, and viscose, are potential sources of the metals. Cotton plants are particularly known to readily take up metals from the soil, although there are other ways that metals may enter the products, like during the manufacturing process.

Exposure to metals found in the initial analysis can affect a range of body systems and processes, including the brain, the kidneys, the heart, blood, and the reproductive and immune systems.

The vagina, the researchers noted, is highly permeable and substances absorbed there do not get filtered for toxins, such as by being metabolized or passing through the liver, before entering the body’s circulatory system.

The FDA announcement did not specify a timeframe for the completion of its investigation.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The FDA has launched an investigation of the potential exposure to heavy metals when using tampons, the agency announced.

The move follows the publication earlier this year of concerning laboratory test results that detected the presence of more than a dozen metals in a variety of popular nonorganic and organic tampon products. That small study was a combined effort by researchers from Columbia University, Michigan State University, and the University of California, Berkeley.

“We want the public to know that before tampons can be legally sold in the US, they must meet FDA requirements for safety and effectiveness. Manufacturers must test the product and its component materials before, during, and after manufacturing,” the FDA wrote in the announcement of its own upcoming study. “Before a product is allowed onto the market, biocompatibility testing is undertaken by the manufacturing company, which is part of safety testing, and is reviewed by the FDA prior to market authorization.”

There will be two studies, the FDA said. One of the studies will involve laboratory tests to evaluate metals in tampons and potential exposure people may experience when using them. The other study will be a review of current research regarding the health effects of metals that may be found in tampons.

The earlier study, published by the journal Environment International, found levels of lead in every product the researchers tested and detectable levels of more than a dozen other metals like arsenic and cadmium.

The researchers tested 24 tampon products from a range of major brands as well as store brands. The tampons were purchased at stores and online between September 2022 and March 2023. Metal content tended to differ by whether or not a product was labeled as organic, the researchers reported. Lead concentrations were higher in nonorganic tampons, and organic tampons had higher levels of arsenic.

There is no safe level of lead exposure, the US Environmental Protection Agency says, and the effects are cumulative throughout the course of life. The study authors noted that the average age that girls begin menstruation is 12 years old, and the onset of menopause occurs, on average, at age 51. One study mentioned by the researchers estimated that between 52% and 86% of people who menstruate use tampons.

The FDA plans a more expansive set of analyses than the earlier study, the agency announced.

“While the study found metals in some tampons, the study did not test whether metals are released from tampons when used. It also did not test for metals being released, absorbed into the vaginal lining, and getting into the bloodstream during tampon use,” the FDA announcement stated. “The FDA’s laboratory study will measure the amount of metals that come out of tampons under conditions that more closely mimic normal use.”

The absorbent materials in tampons, like cotton, rayon, and viscose, are potential sources of the metals. Cotton plants are particularly known to readily take up metals from the soil, although there are other ways that metals may enter the products, like during the manufacturing process.

Exposure to metals found in the initial analysis can affect a range of body systems and processes, including the brain, the kidneys, the heart, blood, and the reproductive and immune systems.

The vagina, the researchers noted, is highly permeable and substances absorbed there do not get filtered for toxins, such as by being metabolized or passing through the liver, before entering the body’s circulatory system.

The FDA announcement did not specify a timeframe for the completion of its investigation.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The FDA has launched an investigation of the potential exposure to heavy metals when using tampons, the agency announced.

The move follows the publication earlier this year of concerning laboratory test results that detected the presence of more than a dozen metals in a variety of popular nonorganic and organic tampon products. That small study was a combined effort by researchers from Columbia University, Michigan State University, and the University of California, Berkeley.

“We want the public to know that before tampons can be legally sold in the US, they must meet FDA requirements for safety and effectiveness. Manufacturers must test the product and its component materials before, during, and after manufacturing,” the FDA wrote in the announcement of its own upcoming study. “Before a product is allowed onto the market, biocompatibility testing is undertaken by the manufacturing company, which is part of safety testing, and is reviewed by the FDA prior to market authorization.”

There will be two studies, the FDA said. One of the studies will involve laboratory tests to evaluate metals in tampons and potential exposure people may experience when using them. The other study will be a review of current research regarding the health effects of metals that may be found in tampons.

The earlier study, published by the journal Environment International, found levels of lead in every product the researchers tested and detectable levels of more than a dozen other metals like arsenic and cadmium.

The researchers tested 24 tampon products from a range of major brands as well as store brands. The tampons were purchased at stores and online between September 2022 and March 2023. Metal content tended to differ by whether or not a product was labeled as organic, the researchers reported. Lead concentrations were higher in nonorganic tampons, and organic tampons had higher levels of arsenic.

There is no safe level of lead exposure, the US Environmental Protection Agency says, and the effects are cumulative throughout the course of life. The study authors noted that the average age that girls begin menstruation is 12 years old, and the onset of menopause occurs, on average, at age 51. One study mentioned by the researchers estimated that between 52% and 86% of people who menstruate use tampons.

The FDA plans a more expansive set of analyses than the earlier study, the agency announced.

“While the study found metals in some tampons, the study did not test whether metals are released from tampons when used. It also did not test for metals being released, absorbed into the vaginal lining, and getting into the bloodstream during tampon use,” the FDA announcement stated. “The FDA’s laboratory study will measure the amount of metals that come out of tampons under conditions that more closely mimic normal use.”

The absorbent materials in tampons, like cotton, rayon, and viscose, are potential sources of the metals. Cotton plants are particularly known to readily take up metals from the soil, although there are other ways that metals may enter the products, like during the manufacturing process.

Exposure to metals found in the initial analysis can affect a range of body systems and processes, including the brain, the kidneys, the heart, blood, and the reproductive and immune systems.

The vagina, the researchers noted, is highly permeable and substances absorbed there do not get filtered for toxins, such as by being metabolized or passing through the liver, before entering the body’s circulatory system.

The FDA announcement did not specify a timeframe for the completion of its investigation.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Pharmacy closures in the United States are creating “pharmacy deserts,” disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. High social vulnerability and low primary care practitioner (PCP) density are linked to increased pharmacy desert density.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data through 2020 on communities located 10 or more miles from the nearest retail pharmacy were sourced from TelePharm Map.
• Counties were stratified as having a high pharmacy desert density if the number of pharmacy deserts per 1000 inhabitants was in the 80th percentile or higher.
• Social vulnerability index and healthcare practitioner data were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Area Health Resources Files.
• PCP density was calculated as the number of PCPs per 10,000 inhabitants.
• A total of 3143 counties were analyzed, with 1447 (46%) having at least one pharmacy desert.

TAKEAWAY:

• Counties with a high pharmacy desert density had a higher social vulnerability index than those with a low pharmacy desert density (P = .006).
• Areas with a high pharmacy desert density had lower median PCP density than those with low or no pharmacy desert density (P < .001).
• High social vulnerability index (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01) and low PCP density (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.80-2.86; P < .001) were associated with a higher likelihood for a county to have a high pharmacy desert density.
• Pharmacy closures are leaving more individuals without easy access to medications, with disproportionate consequences for certain communities.

IN PRACTICE:

“As high pharmacy desert density counties also have a lower PCP density, patients residing in these regions face increased barriers to accessing primary healthcare needs,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Giovanni Catalano, MD, Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi Khan, MBBS, and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, PhD, MPH, MTS, MBA, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design of the study limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The study relied on public county-level data, which may not have captured all relevant variables. The use of the social vulnerability index and PCP density as proxies did not fully represent the complexity of pharmacy access issues. The study’s findings were not generalizable to regions outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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