Hospital Medicine

The US healthcare system is highly fragmented, with patients typically receiving treatment from multiple providers during an episode of care and from many more providers over their lifetime.^1,2 As patients move between care delivery settings, whether and how their information follows them is determined by a haphazard and error-prone patchwork of telephone, fax, and electronic communication channels.³ The existence of more robust electronic communication channels is often dictated by factors such as which providers share the same electronic health record (EHR) vendor rather than which providers share the highest volume of patients. As a result, providers often make clinical decisions with incomplete information, increasing the chances of misdiagnosis, unsafe or suboptimal treatment, and duplicative utilization.

Providers across the continuum of care encounter challenges to optimal clinical decision-making as a result of incomplete information. These are particularly problematic among clinicians in hospitals and emergency departments (EDs). Clinical decision-making in EDs often involves urgent and critical conditions in which decisions are made under pressure. Time constraints limit provider ability to find key clinical information to accurately diagnose and safely treat patients.^4-6 Even for planned inpatient care, providers are often unfamiliar with patients, and they make safer decisions when they have full access to information from outside providers.^7,8

Transitions of care between hospitals and primary care settings are also fraught with gaps in information sharing. Clinical decisions made in primary care can set patients on treatment trajectories that are greatly affected by the quality of information available to the care team at the time of initial diagnosis as well as in their subsequent treatment. Primary care physicians are not universally notified when their patients are hospitalized and may not have access to detailed information about the hospitalization, which can impair their ability to provide high quality care.^9-11

Widespread and effective electronic health information exchange (HIE) holds the potential to address these challenges.³ With robust, interconnected electronic systems, key pieces of a patient’s health record can be electronically accessed and reconciled during planned and unplanned care transitions. The concept of HIE is simple—make all relevant patient data available to the clinical care team at the point of care, regardless of where that information was generated. The estimated value of nationwide interoperable EHR adoption suggests large savings from the more efficient, less duplicative, and higher quality care that likely results.^12,13

There has been substantial funding and activity at federal, state, and local levels to promote the development of HIE in the US. The 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act has the specific goal of accelerating adoption and use of certified EHR technology coupled with the ability to exchange clinical information to support patient care.¹⁴ The HITECH programs supported specific types of HIE that were believed to be particularly critical to improving patient care and included them in the federally-defined criteria for Meaningful Use (MU) of EHRs (ie, providers receive financial incentives for achieving specific objectives). The MU criteria evolve, moving from data capture in stage 1 to improved patient outcomes in stage 3.¹⁵ The HIE criteria focus on sending and receiving summary-of-care records during care transitions.

Despite the clear benefits of HIE and substantial support stated in policy initiatives, the spread of national HIE has been slow. Today, HIE in the US is highly heterogeneous: as a result of multiple federal-, state-, community-, enterprise- and EHR vendor-level efforts, only some provider organizations are able to engage in HIE with the other provider organizations with which they routinely share patients. In this review, we offer a framework and a corresponding set of definitions to understand the current state of HIE in the US. We describe key challenges to HIE progress and offer insights into the likely path to ensure that clinicians have routine, electronic access to patient information.

While the concept of HIE is simple—electronic access to clinical information across healthcare settings—the operationalization of HIE occurs in many different ways.¹⁶ While the terms “health information exchange” and “interoperability” are often used interchangeably, they can have different meanings. In this section, we describe 4 important dimensions that serve as a framework for understanding any given effort to enable HIE (Table).

(1) What Is Exchanged? Types of Information

The term “health information exchange” is ambiguous with respect to the type(s) of information that are accessible. Health information exchange may refer to the process of 2 providers electronically sharing a wide range of data, from a single type of information (eg, lab test results), summary of care records, to complete patient records.¹⁷ Part of this ambiguity may stem from uncertainty about the scope of information that should be shared, and how this varies based on the type of clinical encounter. For example, critical types of information in the ED setting may differ from those relevant to a primary care team after a referral. While the ability to access only particular types of information will not address all information gaps, providing access to complete patient records may result in information overload that inhibits the ability to find the subset of information relevant in a given clinical encounter.

(2) Who is Exchanging? Relationship Between Provider Organizations

The types of information accessed electronically are effectively agnostic to the relationship between the provider organizations that are sharing information. Traditionally, HIE has been considered as information that is electronically shared among 2 or more unaffiliated organizations. However, there is increasing recognition that some providers may not have electronic access to all information about their patients that exists within their organization, often after a merger or acquisition between 2 providers with different EHR systems.^18,19 In these cases, a primary care team in a large integrated delivery system may have as many information gaps as a primary care team in a small, independent practice. Fulfilling clinical information needs may require both intra- and interorganizational HIE, which complicates the design of HIE processes and how the care team approaches incorporating information from both types of organizations into their decision-making. It is also important to recognize that some provider organizations, particularly small, rural practices, may not have the information technology and connectivity infrastructure required to engage in HIE.

(3) How Is Information Exchanged? Types of Electronic Access: Push vs Pull Exchange

To minimize information gaps, electronic access to information from external settings needs to offer both “push” and “pull” options. Push exchange, which can direct information electronically to a targeted recipient, works in scenarios in which there is a known information gap and known information source. The classic use for push exchange is care coordination, such as primary care physician-specialist referrals or hospital-primary care physician transitions postdischarge. Pull exchange accommodates scenarios in which there is a known information gap but the source(s) of information are unknown; it requires that clinical care teams search for and locate the clinical information that exists about the patient in external settings. Here, the classic use is emergency care in which the care team may encounter a new patient and want to retrieve records.

Widespread use of provider portals that offer view-only access into EHRs and other clinical data repositories maintained by external organizations complicate the picture. Portals are commonly used by hospitals to enable community providers to view information from a hospitalization.²¹ While this does not fall under the commonly held notion of HIE because no exchange occurs, portals support a pull approach to accessing information electronically among care settings that treat the same patients but use different EHRs.

Regardless of whether information is pushed or pulled, this may happen with varying degrees of human effort. This distinction gives rise to the difference between HIE and interoperability. Health information exchange reflects the ability of EHRs to exchange information, while interoperability additionally requires that EHRs be able to use exchanged information. From an operational perspective, the key distinction between HIE and interoperability is the extent of human involvement. Health information exchange requires that a human read and decide how to enter information from external settings (eg, a chart in PDF format sent between 2 EHRs), while interoperability enables the EHR that receives the information to understand the content and automatically triage or reconcile information, such as a medication list, without any human action.²¹ Health information exchange, therefore, relies on the diligence of the receiving clinician, while interoperability does not.

(4) What Governance Entity Defines the “Rules” of Exchange?

When more than 1 provider organization shares patient-identified data, a governance entity must specify the framework that governs the exchange. While the specifics of HIE governance vary, there are 3 predominant types of HIE networks, based on the type of organization that governs exchange: enterprise HIE networks, EHR vendor HIE networks or community HIE networks.

Enterprise HIE networks exist when 1 or more provider organizations electronically share clinical information to support patient care with some restriction, beyond geography, that dictates which organizations are involved. Typically, restrictions are driven by strategic, proprietary interests.^22,23 Although broad-based information access across settings would be in the best interest of the patient, provider organizations are sensitive to the competitive implications of sharing data and may pursue such sharing in a strategic way.²⁴ A common scenario is when hospitals choose to strategically affiliate with select ambulatory providers and exclusively exchange information with them. This should facilitate better care coordination for patients shared by the hospital and those providers but can also benefit the hospital by increasing the referrals from those providers. While there is little direct evidence quantifying the extent to which this type of strategic sharing takes place, there have been anecdotal reports as well as indirect findings that for-profit hospitals in competitive markets are less likely to share patient data.^19,25

EHR vendor HIE networks exist when exchange occurs within a community of provider organizations that use an EHR from the same vendor. A subset of EHR vendors have made this capability available; EPIC’s CareEverywhere solution²⁷ is the best-known example. Providers with an EPIC EHR are able to query for and retrieve summary of care records and other documents from any provider organization with EPIC that has activated this functionality. There are also multivendor efforts, such as CommonWell²⁷ and the Sequoia Project’s Carequality collaborative,²⁸ which are initiatives that seek to provide a common interoperability framework across a diverse set of stakeholders, including provider organizations with different EHR systems, in a similar fashion to HIE modules like CareEverywhere. To date, growth in these cross-vendor collaborations has been slow, and they have limited participation. While HIE networks that involve EHR vendors are likely to grow, it is difficult to predict how quickly because they are still in an early phase of development, and face nontechnical barriers such as patient consent policies that vary between providers and across states.

Community HIE networks—also referred to as health information organizations (HIOs) or regional health information organizations (RHIOs)—exist when provider organizations in a community, frequently state-level organizations that were funded through HITECH grants,¹⁴ set up the technical infrastructure and governance approach to engage in HIE to improve patient care. In contrast to enterprise or vendor HIE networks that have pursued HIE in ways that appear strategically beneficial, the only restriction on participation in community and state HIE networks is usually geography because they view information exchange as a public good. Seventy­one percent of hospital service areas (HSAs) are covered by at least 1 of the 106 operational HIOs, with 309,793 clinicians (licensed prescribers) participating in those exchange networks. Even with early infusions of public and other grant-funding, community HIE networks have experienced significant challenges to sustained operation, and many have ceased operating.²⁹

Thus, for any given provider organization, available HIE networks are primarily shaped by 3 factors:

1. Geographic location, which determines the available community and state HIE networks (as well as other basic information technology and connectivity infrastructure); providers located outside the service areas covered by an operational HIE have little incentive to participate because they do not connect them to providers with whom they share patients. Providers in rural areas may simply not have the needed infrastructure to pursue HIE.

2. Type of organization to which they belong, which determines the available enterprise HIE networks; providers who are not members of large health systems may be excluded from participation in these types of networks.

3. EHR vendor, which determines whether they have access to an EHR vendor HIE network.

Despite agreement about the substantial potential of HIE to reduce costs and increase the quality of care delivered across a broad range of providers, HIE progress has been slow. While HITECH has successfully increased EHR adoption in hospitals and ambulatory practices,³⁰ HIE has lagged. This is largely because many complex, intertwined barriers must be addressed for HIE to be widespread.

Lack of a Defined Goal

The cost and complexity associated with the exchange of a single type of data (eg, medications) is substantially less than the cost and complexity of sharing complete patient records. There has been little industry consensus on the target goal—do we need to enable sharing of complete patient records across all providers, or will summary of care records suffice? If the latter, as is the focus of the current MU criteria, what types of information should be included in a summary of care record, and should content and/or structure vary depending on the type of care transition? While the MU criteria require the exchange of a summary of care record with defined data fields, it remains unclear whether this is the end state or whether we should continue to push towards broad-based sharing of all patient data as structured elements. Without a clear picture of the ideal end state, there has been significant heterogeneity in the development of HIE capabilities across providers and vendors, and difficulty coordinating efforts to continue to advance towards a nationwide approach. Addressing this issue also requires progress to define HIE usability, that is, how information from external organizations should be presented and integrated into clinical workflow and clinical decisions. Currently, where HIE is occurring and clinicians are receiving summary of care records, they find them long, cluttered, and difficult to locate key information.

Numerous, Complex Barriers Spanning Multiple Stakeholders

In the context of any individual HIE effort, even after the goal is defined, there are a myriad of challenges. In a recent survey of HIO efforts, many identified the following barriers as substantially impeding their development: establishing a sustainable business model, lack of funding, integration of HIE into provider workflow, limitations of current data standards, and working with governmental policy and mandates.³⁰ What is notable about this list is that the barriers span an array of areas, including financial incentives and identifying a sustainable business model, technical barriers such as working within the limitations of data standards, and regulatory issues such as state laws that govern the requirements for patient consent to exchange personal health information. Overcoming any of these issues is challenging, but trying to tackle all of them simultaneously clearly reveals why progress has been slow. Further, resolving many of the issues involve different groups of stakeholders. For example, implementing appropriate patient consent procedures can require engaging with and harmonizing the regulations of multiple states, as well as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and regulations specific to substance abuse data.

Weak or Misaligned Incentives

Among the top barriers to HIE efforts are those related to funding and lack of a sustainable business model. This reflects the fact that economic incentives in the current market have not promoted provider engagement in HIE. Traditional fee-for-service payment structures do not reward providers for avoiding duplicative care.³¹ Further, hospitals perceive patient data as a “key strategic asset, tying physicians and patients to their organization,”²⁴ and are reluctant to share data with competitors. Compounding the problem is that EHR vendors have a business interest in using HIE as a lever to increase revenue. In the short-term, they can charge high fees for interfaces and other HIE-related functionality. In the long-run, vendors may try to influence provider choice of system by making it difficult to engage in cross-vendor exchange.³² Information blocking—when providers or vendors knowingly interfere with HIE³³—reflects not only weak incentives, but perverse incentives. While not all providers and vendors experience perverse incentives, the combination of weak and perverse incentives suggests the need to strengthen incentives, so that both types of stakeholders are motivated to tackle the barriers to HIE development. Key to strengthening incentives are payers, who are thought to be the largest beneficiaries of HIE. Payers have been reluctant to make significant investments in HIE without a more active voice in its implementation,³⁴ but a shift to value-based payment may increase their engagement.

Despite the continued challenges to nationwide HIE, several policy and technology developments show promise. Stage 3 meaningful use criteria continue to build on previous stages in increasing HIE requirements, raising the threshold for electronic exchange and EHR integration of summary of care documentation in patient transitions. The recently released Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) proposed rule replaces stage 3 meaningful use for Medicare-eligible providers with advancing care information (ACI), which accounts for 25% of a provider’s overall incentive reimbursement and includes multiple HIE criteria for providers to report as part of the base and performance score, and follows a very similar framework to stage 3 MU with its criteria regarding HIE.³⁵ While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not publicly declared that stage 3 MU will be replaced by ACI for hospitals and Medicaid providers, it is likely it will align those programs with the newly announced Medicare incentives.

MACRA also included changes to the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) EHR certification program in an attempt to further encourage HIE. Vendors and providers must attest that they do not engage in information blocking and will cooperate with the Office’s surveillance programs to that effect. They also must attest that, to the greatest degree possible, their EHR systems allow for bi-directional interoperability with other providers, including those with different EHR vendors, and timely access for patients to view, download, and transmit their health data. In addition, there are emerging federal efforts to pursue a more standardized approach to patient matching and harmonize consent policies across states. These types of new policy initiatives indicate a continued interest in prioritizing HIE and interoperability.²¹

New technologies may also help spur HIE progress. The newest policy initiatives from CMS, including stage 3 MU and MACRA, have looked to incentivize the creation of application program interfaces (APIs), a set of publicly available tools from EHR vendors to allow developers to build applications that can directly interface with, and retrieve data from, their EHRs. While most patient access to electronic health data to date has been accomplished via patient portals, open APIs would enable developers to build an array of programs for consumers to view, download, and transmit their health data.

Even more promising is the development of the newest Health Level 7 data transmission standard, Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), which promises to dramatically simplify the technical aspects of interoperability. FHIR utilizes a human-readable, easy to implement modular “resources” standard that may alleviate many technical challenges that come with implementation of an HIE system, enabling cheaper and simpler interoperability.³⁶ A consortium of EHR vendors are working together to test these standards.²⁸ The new FHIR standards also work in conjunction with APIs to allow easier development of consumer-facing applications³⁷ that may empower patients to take ownership of their health data.

While HIE holds great promise to reduce the cost and improve the quality of care, progress towards a nationally interoperable health system has been slow. Simply defining HIE and what types of HIE are needed in different clinical scenarios has proven challenging. The additional challenges to implementing HIE in complex technology, legal/regulatory, governance, and incentive environment are not without solutions. Continued policy interventions, private sector collaborations, and new technologies may hold the keys to realizing the vast potential of electronic HIE.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

The US healthcare system is highly fragmented, with patients typically receiving treatment from multiple providers during an episode of care and from many more providers over their lifetime.^1,2 As patients move between care delivery settings, whether and how their information follows them is determined by a haphazard and error-prone patchwork of telephone, fax, and electronic communication channels.³ The existence of more robust electronic communication channels is often dictated by factors such as which providers share the same electronic health record (EHR) vendor rather than which providers share the highest volume of patients. As a result, providers often make clinical decisions with incomplete information, increasing the chances of misdiagnosis, unsafe or suboptimal treatment, and duplicative utilization.

Providers across the continuum of care encounter challenges to optimal clinical decision-making as a result of incomplete information. These are particularly problematic among clinicians in hospitals and emergency departments (EDs). Clinical decision-making in EDs often involves urgent and critical conditions in which decisions are made under pressure. Time constraints limit provider ability to find key clinical information to accurately diagnose and safely treat patients.^4-6 Even for planned inpatient care, providers are often unfamiliar with patients, and they make safer decisions when they have full access to information from outside providers.^7,8

Transitions of care between hospitals and primary care settings are also fraught with gaps in information sharing. Clinical decisions made in primary care can set patients on treatment trajectories that are greatly affected by the quality of information available to the care team at the time of initial diagnosis as well as in their subsequent treatment. Primary care physicians are not universally notified when their patients are hospitalized and may not have access to detailed information about the hospitalization, which can impair their ability to provide high quality care.^9-11

Widespread and effective electronic health information exchange (HIE) holds the potential to address these challenges.³ With robust, interconnected electronic systems, key pieces of a patient’s health record can be electronically accessed and reconciled during planned and unplanned care transitions. The concept of HIE is simple—make all relevant patient data available to the clinical care team at the point of care, regardless of where that information was generated. The estimated value of nationwide interoperable EHR adoption suggests large savings from the more efficient, less duplicative, and higher quality care that likely results.^12,13

There has been substantial funding and activity at federal, state, and local levels to promote the development of HIE in the US. The 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act has the specific goal of accelerating adoption and use of certified EHR technology coupled with the ability to exchange clinical information to support patient care.¹⁴ The HITECH programs supported specific types of HIE that were believed to be particularly critical to improving patient care and included them in the federally-defined criteria for Meaningful Use (MU) of EHRs (ie, providers receive financial incentives for achieving specific objectives). The MU criteria evolve, moving from data capture in stage 1 to improved patient outcomes in stage 3.¹⁵ The HIE criteria focus on sending and receiving summary-of-care records during care transitions.

Despite the clear benefits of HIE and substantial support stated in policy initiatives, the spread of national HIE has been slow. Today, HIE in the US is highly heterogeneous: as a result of multiple federal-, state-, community-, enterprise- and EHR vendor-level efforts, only some provider organizations are able to engage in HIE with the other provider organizations with which they routinely share patients. In this review, we offer a framework and a corresponding set of definitions to understand the current state of HIE in the US. We describe key challenges to HIE progress and offer insights into the likely path to ensure that clinicians have routine, electronic access to patient information.

While the concept of HIE is simple—electronic access to clinical information across healthcare settings—the operationalization of HIE occurs in many different ways.¹⁶ While the terms “health information exchange” and “interoperability” are often used interchangeably, they can have different meanings. In this section, we describe 4 important dimensions that serve as a framework for understanding any given effort to enable HIE (Table).

(1) What Is Exchanged? Types of Information

The term “health information exchange” is ambiguous with respect to the type(s) of information that are accessible. Health information exchange may refer to the process of 2 providers electronically sharing a wide range of data, from a single type of information (eg, lab test results), summary of care records, to complete patient records.¹⁷ Part of this ambiguity may stem from uncertainty about the scope of information that should be shared, and how this varies based on the type of clinical encounter. For example, critical types of information in the ED setting may differ from those relevant to a primary care team after a referral. While the ability to access only particular types of information will not address all information gaps, providing access to complete patient records may result in information overload that inhibits the ability to find the subset of information relevant in a given clinical encounter.

(2) Who is Exchanging? Relationship Between Provider Organizations

The types of information accessed electronically are effectively agnostic to the relationship between the provider organizations that are sharing information. Traditionally, HIE has been considered as information that is electronically shared among 2 or more unaffiliated organizations. However, there is increasing recognition that some providers may not have electronic access to all information about their patients that exists within their organization, often after a merger or acquisition between 2 providers with different EHR systems.^18,19 In these cases, a primary care team in a large integrated delivery system may have as many information gaps as a primary care team in a small, independent practice. Fulfilling clinical information needs may require both intra- and interorganizational HIE, which complicates the design of HIE processes and how the care team approaches incorporating information from both types of organizations into their decision-making. It is also important to recognize that some provider organizations, particularly small, rural practices, may not have the information technology and connectivity infrastructure required to engage in HIE.

(3) How Is Information Exchanged? Types of Electronic Access: Push vs Pull Exchange

To minimize information gaps, electronic access to information from external settings needs to offer both “push” and “pull” options. Push exchange, which can direct information electronically to a targeted recipient, works in scenarios in which there is a known information gap and known information source. The classic use for push exchange is care coordination, such as primary care physician-specialist referrals or hospital-primary care physician transitions postdischarge. Pull exchange accommodates scenarios in which there is a known information gap but the source(s) of information are unknown; it requires that clinical care teams search for and locate the clinical information that exists about the patient in external settings. Here, the classic use is emergency care in which the care team may encounter a new patient and want to retrieve records.

Widespread use of provider portals that offer view-only access into EHRs and other clinical data repositories maintained by external organizations complicate the picture. Portals are commonly used by hospitals to enable community providers to view information from a hospitalization.²¹ While this does not fall under the commonly held notion of HIE because no exchange occurs, portals support a pull approach to accessing information electronically among care settings that treat the same patients but use different EHRs.

Regardless of whether information is pushed or pulled, this may happen with varying degrees of human effort. This distinction gives rise to the difference between HIE and interoperability. Health information exchange reflects the ability of EHRs to exchange information, while interoperability additionally requires that EHRs be able to use exchanged information. From an operational perspective, the key distinction between HIE and interoperability is the extent of human involvement. Health information exchange requires that a human read and decide how to enter information from external settings (eg, a chart in PDF format sent between 2 EHRs), while interoperability enables the EHR that receives the information to understand the content and automatically triage or reconcile information, such as a medication list, without any human action.²¹ Health information exchange, therefore, relies on the diligence of the receiving clinician, while interoperability does not.

(4) What Governance Entity Defines the “Rules” of Exchange?

When more than 1 provider organization shares patient-identified data, a governance entity must specify the framework that governs the exchange. While the specifics of HIE governance vary, there are 3 predominant types of HIE networks, based on the type of organization that governs exchange: enterprise HIE networks, EHR vendor HIE networks or community HIE networks.

Enterprise HIE networks exist when 1 or more provider organizations electronically share clinical information to support patient care with some restriction, beyond geography, that dictates which organizations are involved. Typically, restrictions are driven by strategic, proprietary interests.^22,23 Although broad-based information access across settings would be in the best interest of the patient, provider organizations are sensitive to the competitive implications of sharing data and may pursue such sharing in a strategic way.²⁴ A common scenario is when hospitals choose to strategically affiliate with select ambulatory providers and exclusively exchange information with them. This should facilitate better care coordination for patients shared by the hospital and those providers but can also benefit the hospital by increasing the referrals from those providers. While there is little direct evidence quantifying the extent to which this type of strategic sharing takes place, there have been anecdotal reports as well as indirect findings that for-profit hospitals in competitive markets are less likely to share patient data.^19,25

EHR vendor HIE networks exist when exchange occurs within a community of provider organizations that use an EHR from the same vendor. A subset of EHR vendors have made this capability available; EPIC’s CareEverywhere solution²⁷ is the best-known example. Providers with an EPIC EHR are able to query for and retrieve summary of care records and other documents from any provider organization with EPIC that has activated this functionality. There are also multivendor efforts, such as CommonWell²⁷ and the Sequoia Project’s Carequality collaborative,²⁸ which are initiatives that seek to provide a common interoperability framework across a diverse set of stakeholders, including provider organizations with different EHR systems, in a similar fashion to HIE modules like CareEverywhere. To date, growth in these cross-vendor collaborations has been slow, and they have limited participation. While HIE networks that involve EHR vendors are likely to grow, it is difficult to predict how quickly because they are still in an early phase of development, and face nontechnical barriers such as patient consent policies that vary between providers and across states.

Community HIE networks—also referred to as health information organizations (HIOs) or regional health information organizations (RHIOs)—exist when provider organizations in a community, frequently state-level organizations that were funded through HITECH grants,¹⁴ set up the technical infrastructure and governance approach to engage in HIE to improve patient care. In contrast to enterprise or vendor HIE networks that have pursued HIE in ways that appear strategically beneficial, the only restriction on participation in community and state HIE networks is usually geography because they view information exchange as a public good. Seventy­one percent of hospital service areas (HSAs) are covered by at least 1 of the 106 operational HIOs, with 309,793 clinicians (licensed prescribers) participating in those exchange networks. Even with early infusions of public and other grant-funding, community HIE networks have experienced significant challenges to sustained operation, and many have ceased operating.²⁹

Thus, for any given provider organization, available HIE networks are primarily shaped by 3 factors:

1. Geographic location, which determines the available community and state HIE networks (as well as other basic information technology and connectivity infrastructure); providers located outside the service areas covered by an operational HIE have little incentive to participate because they do not connect them to providers with whom they share patients. Providers in rural areas may simply not have the needed infrastructure to pursue HIE.

2. Type of organization to which they belong, which determines the available enterprise HIE networks; providers who are not members of large health systems may be excluded from participation in these types of networks.

3. EHR vendor, which determines whether they have access to an EHR vendor HIE network.

Despite agreement about the substantial potential of HIE to reduce costs and increase the quality of care delivered across a broad range of providers, HIE progress has been slow. While HITECH has successfully increased EHR adoption in hospitals and ambulatory practices,³⁰ HIE has lagged. This is largely because many complex, intertwined barriers must be addressed for HIE to be widespread.

Lack of a Defined Goal

The cost and complexity associated with the exchange of a single type of data (eg, medications) is substantially less than the cost and complexity of sharing complete patient records. There has been little industry consensus on the target goal—do we need to enable sharing of complete patient records across all providers, or will summary of care records suffice? If the latter, as is the focus of the current MU criteria, what types of information should be included in a summary of care record, and should content and/or structure vary depending on the type of care transition? While the MU criteria require the exchange of a summary of care record with defined data fields, it remains unclear whether this is the end state or whether we should continue to push towards broad-based sharing of all patient data as structured elements. Without a clear picture of the ideal end state, there has been significant heterogeneity in the development of HIE capabilities across providers and vendors, and difficulty coordinating efforts to continue to advance towards a nationwide approach. Addressing this issue also requires progress to define HIE usability, that is, how information from external organizations should be presented and integrated into clinical workflow and clinical decisions. Currently, where HIE is occurring and clinicians are receiving summary of care records, they find them long, cluttered, and difficult to locate key information.

Numerous, Complex Barriers Spanning Multiple Stakeholders

In the context of any individual HIE effort, even after the goal is defined, there are a myriad of challenges. In a recent survey of HIO efforts, many identified the following barriers as substantially impeding their development: establishing a sustainable business model, lack of funding, integration of HIE into provider workflow, limitations of current data standards, and working with governmental policy and mandates.³⁰ What is notable about this list is that the barriers span an array of areas, including financial incentives and identifying a sustainable business model, technical barriers such as working within the limitations of data standards, and regulatory issues such as state laws that govern the requirements for patient consent to exchange personal health information. Overcoming any of these issues is challenging, but trying to tackle all of them simultaneously clearly reveals why progress has been slow. Further, resolving many of the issues involve different groups of stakeholders. For example, implementing appropriate patient consent procedures can require engaging with and harmonizing the regulations of multiple states, as well as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and regulations specific to substance abuse data.

Weak or Misaligned Incentives

Among the top barriers to HIE efforts are those related to funding and lack of a sustainable business model. This reflects the fact that economic incentives in the current market have not promoted provider engagement in HIE. Traditional fee-for-service payment structures do not reward providers for avoiding duplicative care.³¹ Further, hospitals perceive patient data as a “key strategic asset, tying physicians and patients to their organization,”²⁴ and are reluctant to share data with competitors. Compounding the problem is that EHR vendors have a business interest in using HIE as a lever to increase revenue. In the short-term, they can charge high fees for interfaces and other HIE-related functionality. In the long-run, vendors may try to influence provider choice of system by making it difficult to engage in cross-vendor exchange.³² Information blocking—when providers or vendors knowingly interfere with HIE³³—reflects not only weak incentives, but perverse incentives. While not all providers and vendors experience perverse incentives, the combination of weak and perverse incentives suggests the need to strengthen incentives, so that both types of stakeholders are motivated to tackle the barriers to HIE development. Key to strengthening incentives are payers, who are thought to be the largest beneficiaries of HIE. Payers have been reluctant to make significant investments in HIE without a more active voice in its implementation,³⁴ but a shift to value-based payment may increase their engagement.

Despite the continued challenges to nationwide HIE, several policy and technology developments show promise. Stage 3 meaningful use criteria continue to build on previous stages in increasing HIE requirements, raising the threshold for electronic exchange and EHR integration of summary of care documentation in patient transitions. The recently released Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) proposed rule replaces stage 3 meaningful use for Medicare-eligible providers with advancing care information (ACI), which accounts for 25% of a provider’s overall incentive reimbursement and includes multiple HIE criteria for providers to report as part of the base and performance score, and follows a very similar framework to stage 3 MU with its criteria regarding HIE.³⁵ While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not publicly declared that stage 3 MU will be replaced by ACI for hospitals and Medicaid providers, it is likely it will align those programs with the newly announced Medicare incentives.

MACRA also included changes to the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) EHR certification program in an attempt to further encourage HIE. Vendors and providers must attest that they do not engage in information blocking and will cooperate with the Office’s surveillance programs to that effect. They also must attest that, to the greatest degree possible, their EHR systems allow for bi-directional interoperability with other providers, including those with different EHR vendors, and timely access for patients to view, download, and transmit their health data. In addition, there are emerging federal efforts to pursue a more standardized approach to patient matching and harmonize consent policies across states. These types of new policy initiatives indicate a continued interest in prioritizing HIE and interoperability.²¹

New technologies may also help spur HIE progress. The newest policy initiatives from CMS, including stage 3 MU and MACRA, have looked to incentivize the creation of application program interfaces (APIs), a set of publicly available tools from EHR vendors to allow developers to build applications that can directly interface with, and retrieve data from, their EHRs. While most patient access to electronic health data to date has been accomplished via patient portals, open APIs would enable developers to build an array of programs for consumers to view, download, and transmit their health data.

Even more promising is the development of the newest Health Level 7 data transmission standard, Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), which promises to dramatically simplify the technical aspects of interoperability. FHIR utilizes a human-readable, easy to implement modular “resources” standard that may alleviate many technical challenges that come with implementation of an HIE system, enabling cheaper and simpler interoperability.³⁶ A consortium of EHR vendors are working together to test these standards.²⁸ The new FHIR standards also work in conjunction with APIs to allow easier development of consumer-facing applications³⁷ that may empower patients to take ownership of their health data.

While HIE holds great promise to reduce the cost and improve the quality of care, progress towards a nationally interoperable health system has been slow. Simply defining HIE and what types of HIE are needed in different clinical scenarios has proven challenging. The additional challenges to implementing HIE in complex technology, legal/regulatory, governance, and incentive environment are not without solutions. Continued policy interventions, private sector collaborations, and new technologies may hold the keys to realizing the vast potential of electronic HIE.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

The US healthcare system is highly fragmented, with patients typically receiving treatment from multiple providers during an episode of care and from many more providers over their lifetime.^1,2 As patients move between care delivery settings, whether and how their information follows them is determined by a haphazard and error-prone patchwork of telephone, fax, and electronic communication channels.³ The existence of more robust electronic communication channels is often dictated by factors such as which providers share the same electronic health record (EHR) vendor rather than which providers share the highest volume of patients. As a result, providers often make clinical decisions with incomplete information, increasing the chances of misdiagnosis, unsafe or suboptimal treatment, and duplicative utilization.

Providers across the continuum of care encounter challenges to optimal clinical decision-making as a result of incomplete information. These are particularly problematic among clinicians in hospitals and emergency departments (EDs). Clinical decision-making in EDs often involves urgent and critical conditions in which decisions are made under pressure. Time constraints limit provider ability to find key clinical information to accurately diagnose and safely treat patients.^4-6 Even for planned inpatient care, providers are often unfamiliar with patients, and they make safer decisions when they have full access to information from outside providers.^7,8

Transitions of care between hospitals and primary care settings are also fraught with gaps in information sharing. Clinical decisions made in primary care can set patients on treatment trajectories that are greatly affected by the quality of information available to the care team at the time of initial diagnosis as well as in their subsequent treatment. Primary care physicians are not universally notified when their patients are hospitalized and may not have access to detailed information about the hospitalization, which can impair their ability to provide high quality care.^9-11

Widespread and effective electronic health information exchange (HIE) holds the potential to address these challenges.³ With robust, interconnected electronic systems, key pieces of a patient’s health record can be electronically accessed and reconciled during planned and unplanned care transitions. The concept of HIE is simple—make all relevant patient data available to the clinical care team at the point of care, regardless of where that information was generated. The estimated value of nationwide interoperable EHR adoption suggests large savings from the more efficient, less duplicative, and higher quality care that likely results.^12,13

There has been substantial funding and activity at federal, state, and local levels to promote the development of HIE in the US. The 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act has the specific goal of accelerating adoption and use of certified EHR technology coupled with the ability to exchange clinical information to support patient care.¹⁴ The HITECH programs supported specific types of HIE that were believed to be particularly critical to improving patient care and included them in the federally-defined criteria for Meaningful Use (MU) of EHRs (ie, providers receive financial incentives for achieving specific objectives). The MU criteria evolve, moving from data capture in stage 1 to improved patient outcomes in stage 3.¹⁵ The HIE criteria focus on sending and receiving summary-of-care records during care transitions.

Despite the clear benefits of HIE and substantial support stated in policy initiatives, the spread of national HIE has been slow. Today, HIE in the US is highly heterogeneous: as a result of multiple federal-, state-, community-, enterprise- and EHR vendor-level efforts, only some provider organizations are able to engage in HIE with the other provider organizations with which they routinely share patients. In this review, we offer a framework and a corresponding set of definitions to understand the current state of HIE in the US. We describe key challenges to HIE progress and offer insights into the likely path to ensure that clinicians have routine, electronic access to patient information.

While the concept of HIE is simple—electronic access to clinical information across healthcare settings—the operationalization of HIE occurs in many different ways.¹⁶ While the terms “health information exchange” and “interoperability” are often used interchangeably, they can have different meanings. In this section, we describe 4 important dimensions that serve as a framework for understanding any given effort to enable HIE (Table).

(1) What Is Exchanged? Types of Information

The term “health information exchange” is ambiguous with respect to the type(s) of information that are accessible. Health information exchange may refer to the process of 2 providers electronically sharing a wide range of data, from a single type of information (eg, lab test results), summary of care records, to complete patient records.¹⁷ Part of this ambiguity may stem from uncertainty about the scope of information that should be shared, and how this varies based on the type of clinical encounter. For example, critical types of information in the ED setting may differ from those relevant to a primary care team after a referral. While the ability to access only particular types of information will not address all information gaps, providing access to complete patient records may result in information overload that inhibits the ability to find the subset of information relevant in a given clinical encounter.

(2) Who is Exchanging? Relationship Between Provider Organizations

The types of information accessed electronically are effectively agnostic to the relationship between the provider organizations that are sharing information. Traditionally, HIE has been considered as information that is electronically shared among 2 or more unaffiliated organizations. However, there is increasing recognition that some providers may not have electronic access to all information about their patients that exists within their organization, often after a merger or acquisition between 2 providers with different EHR systems.^18,19 In these cases, a primary care team in a large integrated delivery system may have as many information gaps as a primary care team in a small, independent practice. Fulfilling clinical information needs may require both intra- and interorganizational HIE, which complicates the design of HIE processes and how the care team approaches incorporating information from both types of organizations into their decision-making. It is also important to recognize that some provider organizations, particularly small, rural practices, may not have the information technology and connectivity infrastructure required to engage in HIE.

(3) How Is Information Exchanged? Types of Electronic Access: Push vs Pull Exchange

To minimize information gaps, electronic access to information from external settings needs to offer both “push” and “pull” options. Push exchange, which can direct information electronically to a targeted recipient, works in scenarios in which there is a known information gap and known information source. The classic use for push exchange is care coordination, such as primary care physician-specialist referrals or hospital-primary care physician transitions postdischarge. Pull exchange accommodates scenarios in which there is a known information gap but the source(s) of information are unknown; it requires that clinical care teams search for and locate the clinical information that exists about the patient in external settings. Here, the classic use is emergency care in which the care team may encounter a new patient and want to retrieve records.

Widespread use of provider portals that offer view-only access into EHRs and other clinical data repositories maintained by external organizations complicate the picture. Portals are commonly used by hospitals to enable community providers to view information from a hospitalization.²¹ While this does not fall under the commonly held notion of HIE because no exchange occurs, portals support a pull approach to accessing information electronically among care settings that treat the same patients but use different EHRs.

Regardless of whether information is pushed or pulled, this may happen with varying degrees of human effort. This distinction gives rise to the difference between HIE and interoperability. Health information exchange reflects the ability of EHRs to exchange information, while interoperability additionally requires that EHRs be able to use exchanged information. From an operational perspective, the key distinction between HIE and interoperability is the extent of human involvement. Health information exchange requires that a human read and decide how to enter information from external settings (eg, a chart in PDF format sent between 2 EHRs), while interoperability enables the EHR that receives the information to understand the content and automatically triage or reconcile information, such as a medication list, without any human action.²¹ Health information exchange, therefore, relies on the diligence of the receiving clinician, while interoperability does not.

(4) What Governance Entity Defines the “Rules” of Exchange?

When more than 1 provider organization shares patient-identified data, a governance entity must specify the framework that governs the exchange. While the specifics of HIE governance vary, there are 3 predominant types of HIE networks, based on the type of organization that governs exchange: enterprise HIE networks, EHR vendor HIE networks or community HIE networks.

Enterprise HIE networks exist when 1 or more provider organizations electronically share clinical information to support patient care with some restriction, beyond geography, that dictates which organizations are involved. Typically, restrictions are driven by strategic, proprietary interests.^22,23 Although broad-based information access across settings would be in the best interest of the patient, provider organizations are sensitive to the competitive implications of sharing data and may pursue such sharing in a strategic way.²⁴ A common scenario is when hospitals choose to strategically affiliate with select ambulatory providers and exclusively exchange information with them. This should facilitate better care coordination for patients shared by the hospital and those providers but can also benefit the hospital by increasing the referrals from those providers. While there is little direct evidence quantifying the extent to which this type of strategic sharing takes place, there have been anecdotal reports as well as indirect findings that for-profit hospitals in competitive markets are less likely to share patient data.^19,25

EHR vendor HIE networks exist when exchange occurs within a community of provider organizations that use an EHR from the same vendor. A subset of EHR vendors have made this capability available; EPIC’s CareEverywhere solution²⁷ is the best-known example. Providers with an EPIC EHR are able to query for and retrieve summary of care records and other documents from any provider organization with EPIC that has activated this functionality. There are also multivendor efforts, such as CommonWell²⁷ and the Sequoia Project’s Carequality collaborative,²⁸ which are initiatives that seek to provide a common interoperability framework across a diverse set of stakeholders, including provider organizations with different EHR systems, in a similar fashion to HIE modules like CareEverywhere. To date, growth in these cross-vendor collaborations has been slow, and they have limited participation. While HIE networks that involve EHR vendors are likely to grow, it is difficult to predict how quickly because they are still in an early phase of development, and face nontechnical barriers such as patient consent policies that vary between providers and across states.

Community HIE networks—also referred to as health information organizations (HIOs) or regional health information organizations (RHIOs)—exist when provider organizations in a community, frequently state-level organizations that were funded through HITECH grants,¹⁴ set up the technical infrastructure and governance approach to engage in HIE to improve patient care. In contrast to enterprise or vendor HIE networks that have pursued HIE in ways that appear strategically beneficial, the only restriction on participation in community and state HIE networks is usually geography because they view information exchange as a public good. Seventy­one percent of hospital service areas (HSAs) are covered by at least 1 of the 106 operational HIOs, with 309,793 clinicians (licensed prescribers) participating in those exchange networks. Even with early infusions of public and other grant-funding, community HIE networks have experienced significant challenges to sustained operation, and many have ceased operating.²⁹

Thus, for any given provider organization, available HIE networks are primarily shaped by 3 factors:

1. Geographic location, which determines the available community and state HIE networks (as well as other basic information technology and connectivity infrastructure); providers located outside the service areas covered by an operational HIE have little incentive to participate because they do not connect them to providers with whom they share patients. Providers in rural areas may simply not have the needed infrastructure to pursue HIE.

2. Type of organization to which they belong, which determines the available enterprise HIE networks; providers who are not members of large health systems may be excluded from participation in these types of networks.

3. EHR vendor, which determines whether they have access to an EHR vendor HIE network.

Despite agreement about the substantial potential of HIE to reduce costs and increase the quality of care delivered across a broad range of providers, HIE progress has been slow. While HITECH has successfully increased EHR adoption in hospitals and ambulatory practices,³⁰ HIE has lagged. This is largely because many complex, intertwined barriers must be addressed for HIE to be widespread.

Lack of a Defined Goal

The cost and complexity associated with the exchange of a single type of data (eg, medications) is substantially less than the cost and complexity of sharing complete patient records. There has been little industry consensus on the target goal—do we need to enable sharing of complete patient records across all providers, or will summary of care records suffice? If the latter, as is the focus of the current MU criteria, what types of information should be included in a summary of care record, and should content and/or structure vary depending on the type of care transition? While the MU criteria require the exchange of a summary of care record with defined data fields, it remains unclear whether this is the end state or whether we should continue to push towards broad-based sharing of all patient data as structured elements. Without a clear picture of the ideal end state, there has been significant heterogeneity in the development of HIE capabilities across providers and vendors, and difficulty coordinating efforts to continue to advance towards a nationwide approach. Addressing this issue also requires progress to define HIE usability, that is, how information from external organizations should be presented and integrated into clinical workflow and clinical decisions. Currently, where HIE is occurring and clinicians are receiving summary of care records, they find them long, cluttered, and difficult to locate key information.

Numerous, Complex Barriers Spanning Multiple Stakeholders

In the context of any individual HIE effort, even after the goal is defined, there are a myriad of challenges. In a recent survey of HIO efforts, many identified the following barriers as substantially impeding their development: establishing a sustainable business model, lack of funding, integration of HIE into provider workflow, limitations of current data standards, and working with governmental policy and mandates.³⁰ What is notable about this list is that the barriers span an array of areas, including financial incentives and identifying a sustainable business model, technical barriers such as working within the limitations of data standards, and regulatory issues such as state laws that govern the requirements for patient consent to exchange personal health information. Overcoming any of these issues is challenging, but trying to tackle all of them simultaneously clearly reveals why progress has been slow. Further, resolving many of the issues involve different groups of stakeholders. For example, implementing appropriate patient consent procedures can require engaging with and harmonizing the regulations of multiple states, as well as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and regulations specific to substance abuse data.

Weak or Misaligned Incentives

Among the top barriers to HIE efforts are those related to funding and lack of a sustainable business model. This reflects the fact that economic incentives in the current market have not promoted provider engagement in HIE. Traditional fee-for-service payment structures do not reward providers for avoiding duplicative care.³¹ Further, hospitals perceive patient data as a “key strategic asset, tying physicians and patients to their organization,”²⁴ and are reluctant to share data with competitors. Compounding the problem is that EHR vendors have a business interest in using HIE as a lever to increase revenue. In the short-term, they can charge high fees for interfaces and other HIE-related functionality. In the long-run, vendors may try to influence provider choice of system by making it difficult to engage in cross-vendor exchange.³² Information blocking—when providers or vendors knowingly interfere with HIE³³—reflects not only weak incentives, but perverse incentives. While not all providers and vendors experience perverse incentives, the combination of weak and perverse incentives suggests the need to strengthen incentives, so that both types of stakeholders are motivated to tackle the barriers to HIE development. Key to strengthening incentives are payers, who are thought to be the largest beneficiaries of HIE. Payers have been reluctant to make significant investments in HIE without a more active voice in its implementation,³⁴ but a shift to value-based payment may increase their engagement.

Despite the continued challenges to nationwide HIE, several policy and technology developments show promise. Stage 3 meaningful use criteria continue to build on previous stages in increasing HIE requirements, raising the threshold for electronic exchange and EHR integration of summary of care documentation in patient transitions. The recently released Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) proposed rule replaces stage 3 meaningful use for Medicare-eligible providers with advancing care information (ACI), which accounts for 25% of a provider’s overall incentive reimbursement and includes multiple HIE criteria for providers to report as part of the base and performance score, and follows a very similar framework to stage 3 MU with its criteria regarding HIE.³⁵ While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has not publicly declared that stage 3 MU will be replaced by ACI for hospitals and Medicaid providers, it is likely it will align those programs with the newly announced Medicare incentives.

MACRA also included changes to the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) EHR certification program in an attempt to further encourage HIE. Vendors and providers must attest that they do not engage in information blocking and will cooperate with the Office’s surveillance programs to that effect. They also must attest that, to the greatest degree possible, their EHR systems allow for bi-directional interoperability with other providers, including those with different EHR vendors, and timely access for patients to view, download, and transmit their health data. In addition, there are emerging federal efforts to pursue a more standardized approach to patient matching and harmonize consent policies across states. These types of new policy initiatives indicate a continued interest in prioritizing HIE and interoperability.²¹

New technologies may also help spur HIE progress. The newest policy initiatives from CMS, including stage 3 MU and MACRA, have looked to incentivize the creation of application program interfaces (APIs), a set of publicly available tools from EHR vendors to allow developers to build applications that can directly interface with, and retrieve data from, their EHRs. While most patient access to electronic health data to date has been accomplished via patient portals, open APIs would enable developers to build an array of programs for consumers to view, download, and transmit their health data.

Even more promising is the development of the newest Health Level 7 data transmission standard, Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), which promises to dramatically simplify the technical aspects of interoperability. FHIR utilizes a human-readable, easy to implement modular “resources” standard that may alleviate many technical challenges that come with implementation of an HIE system, enabling cheaper and simpler interoperability.³⁶ A consortium of EHR vendors are working together to test these standards.²⁸ The new FHIR standards also work in conjunction with APIs to allow easier development of consumer-facing applications³⁷ that may empower patients to take ownership of their health data.

While HIE holds great promise to reduce the cost and improve the quality of care, progress towards a nationally interoperable health system has been slow. Simply defining HIE and what types of HIE are needed in different clinical scenarios has proven challenging. The additional challenges to implementing HIE in complex technology, legal/regulatory, governance, and incentive environment are not without solutions. Continued policy interventions, private sector collaborations, and new technologies may hold the keys to realizing the vast potential of electronic HIE.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

On July 30, 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 into law, establishing Medicare and Medicaid as Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act.¹ Shortly after, Medicare’s “extended care benefit” began, offering Medicare beneficiaries skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after a qualifying stay of 3 or more consecutive inpatient midnights.² Fifty years later, the word “inpatient” remains embedded in statute, limiting SNF coverage for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized as outpatients under observation for part or all of a 3-midnight stay.³

At the individual Medicare beneficiary level, the financial impact of this policy is clear. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported a $10,503 beneficiary out-of-pocket cost per uncovered SNF stay following an observation hospitalization in 2012.⁴ But the actual number of Medicare beneficiaries impacted by this coverage gap is unknown. Using 2009 claims data, Feng et al.⁵ estimated that 0.75% of previously community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries are discharged to a SNF following an observation hospitalization, and the OIG reported 617,702 beneficiary hospital stays of 3 or more midnights not meeting the 3-midnight inpatient requirement in 2012, with 4% of these beneficiaries discharging to SNFs.⁴ Yet these studies based on Medicare claims data only capture actual SNF utilization, failing to answer the critical question: How many Medicare beneficiaries need, but forgo, SNF care following a non-qualifying observation hospital stay? In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Goldstein et al.⁶ provide insight to that question. Using chart review of physical therapy and case management recommendations for post-acute SNF care, Goldstein et al.⁶ compare actual discharge rate to SNF or acute inpatient rehabilitation following an observation stay when such disposition is recommended. In their two-hospital system, fewer than 20% of previously community-dwelling hospitalist patients followed recommendation for post-acute facility stay after observation hospitalization, and more than 40% cited financial concerns as the reason for declining. Patients recommended for SNF also were more likely to be rehospitalized in the subsequent 30 days after discharge, confirming this as a vulnerable patient population. Given Medicare’s original intent to improve health care access for seniors, the case for change seems clear, and the repercussions of not addressing the plight of patients hospitalized under observation is having negative financial and overall detrimental health impacts.

But there are other compelling reasons why this 50-year-old law needs to be improved. Hospital care today is vastly different than when Medicare became law. Average hospital length of stay for patients 65 years and older was 14.2 days in 1965⁷ compared to 5.2 days today,⁸ clearly a shift in what 3 days of hospital care means. Most importantly, observation stays have become a major part of hospital care. Between 2006 and 2014, per-beneficiary outpatient visits (which include all observation stays) increased 44.2% nationally, while inpatient discharges decreased 19.9%.⁹ In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) received 1.7 million outpatient observation claims and an additional 700,000 inpatient claims that started with observation days.¹⁰ CMS also expected the 2-midnight rule to reduce outpatient observation stays,⁴ but a recent OIG report¹¹ found that outpatient stays increased 8.1% in the first year (FY 2014) under the new rule, and there were still 748,337 long observation stays (those lasting 2 midnights or longer) in 2014, only a small (2.8%) decrease from the prior year. These factors limit Medicare beneficiary post–acute SNF eligibility in ways that could not have been anticipated when the extended care benefit was created to help seniors access needed health care.

Policymakers must consider cost when considering statutory change. Waiver programs in the 1980s suspending the 3-midnight requirement raised concerns over potential increase in both SNF utilization and associated costs.¹² However, more recent data suggest that altering the 3-midnight requirement may not increase post-acute SNF utilization. From 2006 to 2010, Medicare Advantage programs that waived the 3-midnight requirement saw a decrease in hospital length of stay without increased SNF utilization or SNF length of stay, indicating that access to the right level of care at the right time could be cost-saving.¹³ Recent data from the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program found savings were largely related to decreased SNF utilization when payments were episode-based,¹⁴ a trend that may continue as Medicare moves away from fee-for-service towards bundled payments for more conditions. And although neither example directly tests changing the 3-midnight requirement to include observation midnights, both studies suggest that innovative health care delivery and modification of SNF access did not result in increased SNF utilization or greater post-acute costs. In fact, as Goldstein et al.⁶ showed, patients recommended for post-acute SNF following observation stay were more likely to be rehospitalized within 30 days, an additional cost that could potentially be avoided if these patients had SNF access. We believe that these correlations strongly support rescinding the 3-midnight requirement, or at least amending it to allow nights spend under observation to count as “inpatient” for the purposes of SNF benefit coverage.

That being said, what can be done? In 2015, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) recommended changing the 3-night requirement to require just one of 3 midnights to be inpatient to make a qualifying stay.¹⁰ Although an improvement over current law, this proposal would not help the majority of beneficiaries who are exclusively hospitalized under observation status. The “Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2015”, to be reintroduced in Congress in the coming weeks, would count any midnight spent in the hospital towards the 3-midnight stay requirement, and has bipartisan, bicameral support and cosponsorship.¹⁵ In 2015, through unanimous bipartisan, bicameral support, Congress passed the NOTICE Act (PL 114-42), which requires hospitals to inform Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized under observation.¹⁶ We believe that the data are clear to both sides of the aisle that Congress should now work together using scientifically-supported research to improve the exact observation policies they felt patients should be informed of. Passing the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act is the logical next step in this arena.

Medicare was intended to give seniors access to the healthcare they need. Growth in hospital-based observation care begs for modernization of the statutory 3-inpatient midnight rule. Counting all midnights towards the 3-midnight requirement, whether those midnights are outpatient observation or inpatient, is the right first step.

Disclosures

Representative Courtney is the bill sponsor of the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act. The authors report no other conflicts.

On July 30, 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 into law, establishing Medicare and Medicaid as Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act.¹ Shortly after, Medicare’s “extended care benefit” began, offering Medicare beneficiaries skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after a qualifying stay of 3 or more consecutive inpatient midnights.² Fifty years later, the word “inpatient” remains embedded in statute, limiting SNF coverage for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized as outpatients under observation for part or all of a 3-midnight stay.³

At the individual Medicare beneficiary level, the financial impact of this policy is clear. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported a $10,503 beneficiary out-of-pocket cost per uncovered SNF stay following an observation hospitalization in 2012.⁴ But the actual number of Medicare beneficiaries impacted by this coverage gap is unknown. Using 2009 claims data, Feng et al.⁵ estimated that 0.75% of previously community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries are discharged to a SNF following an observation hospitalization, and the OIG reported 617,702 beneficiary hospital stays of 3 or more midnights not meeting the 3-midnight inpatient requirement in 2012, with 4% of these beneficiaries discharging to SNFs.⁴ Yet these studies based on Medicare claims data only capture actual SNF utilization, failing to answer the critical question: How many Medicare beneficiaries need, but forgo, SNF care following a non-qualifying observation hospital stay? In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Goldstein et al.⁶ provide insight to that question. Using chart review of physical therapy and case management recommendations for post-acute SNF care, Goldstein et al.⁶ compare actual discharge rate to SNF or acute inpatient rehabilitation following an observation stay when such disposition is recommended. In their two-hospital system, fewer than 20% of previously community-dwelling hospitalist patients followed recommendation for post-acute facility stay after observation hospitalization, and more than 40% cited financial concerns as the reason for declining. Patients recommended for SNF also were more likely to be rehospitalized in the subsequent 30 days after discharge, confirming this as a vulnerable patient population. Given Medicare’s original intent to improve health care access for seniors, the case for change seems clear, and the repercussions of not addressing the plight of patients hospitalized under observation is having negative financial and overall detrimental health impacts.

But there are other compelling reasons why this 50-year-old law needs to be improved. Hospital care today is vastly different than when Medicare became law. Average hospital length of stay for patients 65 years and older was 14.2 days in 1965⁷ compared to 5.2 days today,⁸ clearly a shift in what 3 days of hospital care means. Most importantly, observation stays have become a major part of hospital care. Between 2006 and 2014, per-beneficiary outpatient visits (which include all observation stays) increased 44.2% nationally, while inpatient discharges decreased 19.9%.⁹ In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) received 1.7 million outpatient observation claims and an additional 700,000 inpatient claims that started with observation days.¹⁰ CMS also expected the 2-midnight rule to reduce outpatient observation stays,⁴ but a recent OIG report¹¹ found that outpatient stays increased 8.1% in the first year (FY 2014) under the new rule, and there were still 748,337 long observation stays (those lasting 2 midnights or longer) in 2014, only a small (2.8%) decrease from the prior year. These factors limit Medicare beneficiary post–acute SNF eligibility in ways that could not have been anticipated when the extended care benefit was created to help seniors access needed health care.

Policymakers must consider cost when considering statutory change. Waiver programs in the 1980s suspending the 3-midnight requirement raised concerns over potential increase in both SNF utilization and associated costs.¹² However, more recent data suggest that altering the 3-midnight requirement may not increase post-acute SNF utilization. From 2006 to 2010, Medicare Advantage programs that waived the 3-midnight requirement saw a decrease in hospital length of stay without increased SNF utilization or SNF length of stay, indicating that access to the right level of care at the right time could be cost-saving.¹³ Recent data from the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program found savings were largely related to decreased SNF utilization when payments were episode-based,¹⁴ a trend that may continue as Medicare moves away from fee-for-service towards bundled payments for more conditions. And although neither example directly tests changing the 3-midnight requirement to include observation midnights, both studies suggest that innovative health care delivery and modification of SNF access did not result in increased SNF utilization or greater post-acute costs. In fact, as Goldstein et al.⁶ showed, patients recommended for post-acute SNF following observation stay were more likely to be rehospitalized within 30 days, an additional cost that could potentially be avoided if these patients had SNF access. We believe that these correlations strongly support rescinding the 3-midnight requirement, or at least amending it to allow nights spend under observation to count as “inpatient” for the purposes of SNF benefit coverage.

That being said, what can be done? In 2015, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) recommended changing the 3-night requirement to require just one of 3 midnights to be inpatient to make a qualifying stay.¹⁰ Although an improvement over current law, this proposal would not help the majority of beneficiaries who are exclusively hospitalized under observation status. The “Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2015”, to be reintroduced in Congress in the coming weeks, would count any midnight spent in the hospital towards the 3-midnight stay requirement, and has bipartisan, bicameral support and cosponsorship.¹⁵ In 2015, through unanimous bipartisan, bicameral support, Congress passed the NOTICE Act (PL 114-42), which requires hospitals to inform Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized under observation.¹⁶ We believe that the data are clear to both sides of the aisle that Congress should now work together using scientifically-supported research to improve the exact observation policies they felt patients should be informed of. Passing the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act is the logical next step in this arena.

Medicare was intended to give seniors access to the healthcare they need. Growth in hospital-based observation care begs for modernization of the statutory 3-inpatient midnight rule. Counting all midnights towards the 3-midnight requirement, whether those midnights are outpatient observation or inpatient, is the right first step.

Disclosures

Representative Courtney is the bill sponsor of the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act. The authors report no other conflicts.

On July 30, 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 into law, establishing Medicare and Medicaid as Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act.¹ Shortly after, Medicare’s “extended care benefit” began, offering Medicare beneficiaries skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after a qualifying stay of 3 or more consecutive inpatient midnights.² Fifty years later, the word “inpatient” remains embedded in statute, limiting SNF coverage for Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized as outpatients under observation for part or all of a 3-midnight stay.³

At the individual Medicare beneficiary level, the financial impact of this policy is clear. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported a $10,503 beneficiary out-of-pocket cost per uncovered SNF stay following an observation hospitalization in 2012.⁴ But the actual number of Medicare beneficiaries impacted by this coverage gap is unknown. Using 2009 claims data, Feng et al.⁵ estimated that 0.75% of previously community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries are discharged to a SNF following an observation hospitalization, and the OIG reported 617,702 beneficiary hospital stays of 3 or more midnights not meeting the 3-midnight inpatient requirement in 2012, with 4% of these beneficiaries discharging to SNFs.⁴ Yet these studies based on Medicare claims data only capture actual SNF utilization, failing to answer the critical question: How many Medicare beneficiaries need, but forgo, SNF care following a non-qualifying observation hospital stay? In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Goldstein et al.⁶ provide insight to that question. Using chart review of physical therapy and case management recommendations for post-acute SNF care, Goldstein et al.⁶ compare actual discharge rate to SNF or acute inpatient rehabilitation following an observation stay when such disposition is recommended. In their two-hospital system, fewer than 20% of previously community-dwelling hospitalist patients followed recommendation for post-acute facility stay after observation hospitalization, and more than 40% cited financial concerns as the reason for declining. Patients recommended for SNF also were more likely to be rehospitalized in the subsequent 30 days after discharge, confirming this as a vulnerable patient population. Given Medicare’s original intent to improve health care access for seniors, the case for change seems clear, and the repercussions of not addressing the plight of patients hospitalized under observation is having negative financial and overall detrimental health impacts.

But there are other compelling reasons why this 50-year-old law needs to be improved. Hospital care today is vastly different than when Medicare became law. Average hospital length of stay for patients 65 years and older was 14.2 days in 1965⁷ compared to 5.2 days today,⁸ clearly a shift in what 3 days of hospital care means. Most importantly, observation stays have become a major part of hospital care. Between 2006 and 2014, per-beneficiary outpatient visits (which include all observation stays) increased 44.2% nationally, while inpatient discharges decreased 19.9%.⁹ In 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) received 1.7 million outpatient observation claims and an additional 700,000 inpatient claims that started with observation days.¹⁰ CMS also expected the 2-midnight rule to reduce outpatient observation stays,⁴ but a recent OIG report¹¹ found that outpatient stays increased 8.1% in the first year (FY 2014) under the new rule, and there were still 748,337 long observation stays (those lasting 2 midnights or longer) in 2014, only a small (2.8%) decrease from the prior year. These factors limit Medicare beneficiary post–acute SNF eligibility in ways that could not have been anticipated when the extended care benefit was created to help seniors access needed health care.

Policymakers must consider cost when considering statutory change. Waiver programs in the 1980s suspending the 3-midnight requirement raised concerns over potential increase in both SNF utilization and associated costs.¹² However, more recent data suggest that altering the 3-midnight requirement may not increase post-acute SNF utilization. From 2006 to 2010, Medicare Advantage programs that waived the 3-midnight requirement saw a decrease in hospital length of stay without increased SNF utilization or SNF length of stay, indicating that access to the right level of care at the right time could be cost-saving.¹³ Recent data from the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program found savings were largely related to decreased SNF utilization when payments were episode-based,¹⁴ a trend that may continue as Medicare moves away from fee-for-service towards bundled payments for more conditions. And although neither example directly tests changing the 3-midnight requirement to include observation midnights, both studies suggest that innovative health care delivery and modification of SNF access did not result in increased SNF utilization or greater post-acute costs. In fact, as Goldstein et al.⁶ showed, patients recommended for post-acute SNF following observation stay were more likely to be rehospitalized within 30 days, an additional cost that could potentially be avoided if these patients had SNF access. We believe that these correlations strongly support rescinding the 3-midnight requirement, or at least amending it to allow nights spend under observation to count as “inpatient” for the purposes of SNF benefit coverage.

That being said, what can be done? In 2015, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) recommended changing the 3-night requirement to require just one of 3 midnights to be inpatient to make a qualifying stay.¹⁰ Although an improvement over current law, this proposal would not help the majority of beneficiaries who are exclusively hospitalized under observation status. The “Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2015”, to be reintroduced in Congress in the coming weeks, would count any midnight spent in the hospital towards the 3-midnight stay requirement, and has bipartisan, bicameral support and cosponsorship.¹⁵ In 2015, through unanimous bipartisan, bicameral support, Congress passed the NOTICE Act (PL 114-42), which requires hospitals to inform Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized under observation.¹⁶ We believe that the data are clear to both sides of the aisle that Congress should now work together using scientifically-supported research to improve the exact observation policies they felt patients should be informed of. Passing the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act is the logical next step in this arena.

Medicare was intended to give seniors access to the healthcare they need. Growth in hospital-based observation care begs for modernization of the statutory 3-inpatient midnight rule. Counting all midnights towards the 3-midnight requirement, whether those midnights are outpatient observation or inpatient, is the right first step.

Disclosures

Representative Courtney is the bill sponsor of the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act. The authors report no other conflicts.

In the article by Riddle et al,¹ the authors state that in the example of Cluster A type personality disorder, the elderly male patient’s paranoid disorder should be ignored, rather than confronting the paranoia. We do not need to confront the paranoia, but we need to treat the paranoid disorder. The symptom of paranoia extends beyond the single diagnostic category of delusional disorder and has been noted in many elderly patients with other underlying disorders.² This patient needs early psychiatric consultation and therapy.

They also give recommendations regarding Ms. B for her ever-increasing need of opiates. I find it too naïve for me to offer this patient “…choices, such as walking with her around the unit or listen to the music.” This patient needs pain physician consultations and aggressive interventional pain control.³

In the article by Riddle et al,¹ the authors state that in the example of Cluster A type personality disorder, the elderly male patient’s paranoid disorder should be ignored, rather than confronting the paranoia. We do not need to confront the paranoia, but we need to treat the paranoid disorder. The symptom of paranoia extends beyond the single diagnostic category of delusional disorder and has been noted in many elderly patients with other underlying disorders.² This patient needs early psychiatric consultation and therapy.

They also give recommendations regarding Ms. B for her ever-increasing need of opiates. I find it too naïve for me to offer this patient “…choices, such as walking with her around the unit or listen to the music.” This patient needs pain physician consultations and aggressive interventional pain control.³

In the article by Riddle et al,¹ the authors state that in the example of Cluster A type personality disorder, the elderly male patient’s paranoid disorder should be ignored, rather than confronting the paranoia. We do not need to confront the paranoia, but we need to treat the paranoid disorder. The symptom of paranoia extends beyond the single diagnostic category of delusional disorder and has been noted in many elderly patients with other underlying disorders.² This patient needs early psychiatric consultation and therapy.

They also give recommendations regarding Ms. B for her ever-increasing need of opiates. I find it too naïve for me to offer this patient “…choices, such as walking with her around the unit or listen to the music.” This patient needs pain physician consultations and aggressive interventional pain control.³

Research has confirmed what many people know from experience: that paid sick days can make the workplace healthier. In 1 study, researchers found universal access to paid sick days (PSD) reduced influenza in the workplace by 6%.  To drill down on the influence PSD access has on decisions to stay home from work, or to stay home with a child who has flu or influenza-like-illness, researchers from University of Pittsburgh analyzed data from the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 12,901 households and 12,044 employees. They chose the 2009 survey because the numbers of influenza-like-illness and influenza cases were likely to have been higher due to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Of the workers surveyed, 64% had access to PSD. Access was associated significantly with gender, race/ethnicity, income, education, and number of employees in the workplace. In the group of 4,911 employees who had children, 68% had PSD.

The study highlighted some subgroups that face barriers to following CDC recommendations, such as staying home for up to 24 hours after symptoms subside. Hispanics, for instance, were significantly less likely to stay home when ill, but this was not necessarily an ethnic difference, the researchers say. Rather, they suggest, it may have had more to do with job security and workplace culture. They cite a survey done during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, in which Hispanics reported fewer resources at work than non-Hispanic whites, including paid sick leave, job security, and ability to work from home.

Women tend to be the main caregivers for children. In this study, women had a higher prevalence of staying home for a child’s illness than men, even after the researchers controlled for PSD access. Yet, in a different survey women also were more likely to report for work when ill, or when a child was ill. The researchers called this “presenteeism.”

The researchers underscore the importance of PSD laws in reducing the economic burden of healthy behavior in families. They note that in 2015, 35% of employees did not have access to PSD, and those employees were usually people with low income. Only 34% of those in the lowest-income group had access to PSD, compared with 89% in the highest income groups.

Source:

Piper K, Youk A, James AE, III, Kumar S. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2): e0170698.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170698

Research has confirmed what many people know from experience: that paid sick days can make the workplace healthier. In 1 study, researchers found universal access to paid sick days (PSD) reduced influenza in the workplace by 6%.  To drill down on the influence PSD access has on decisions to stay home from work, or to stay home with a child who has flu or influenza-like-illness, researchers from University of Pittsburgh analyzed data from the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 12,901 households and 12,044 employees. They chose the 2009 survey because the numbers of influenza-like-illness and influenza cases were likely to have been higher due to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Of the workers surveyed, 64% had access to PSD. Access was associated significantly with gender, race/ethnicity, income, education, and number of employees in the workplace. In the group of 4,911 employees who had children, 68% had PSD.

The study highlighted some subgroups that face barriers to following CDC recommendations, such as staying home for up to 24 hours after symptoms subside. Hispanics, for instance, were significantly less likely to stay home when ill, but this was not necessarily an ethnic difference, the researchers say. Rather, they suggest, it may have had more to do with job security and workplace culture. They cite a survey done during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, in which Hispanics reported fewer resources at work than non-Hispanic whites, including paid sick leave, job security, and ability to work from home.

Women tend to be the main caregivers for children. In this study, women had a higher prevalence of staying home for a child’s illness than men, even after the researchers controlled for PSD access. Yet, in a different survey women also were more likely to report for work when ill, or when a child was ill. The researchers called this “presenteeism.”

The researchers underscore the importance of PSD laws in reducing the economic burden of healthy behavior in families. They note that in 2015, 35% of employees did not have access to PSD, and those employees were usually people with low income. Only 34% of those in the lowest-income group had access to PSD, compared with 89% in the highest income groups.

Source:

Piper K, Youk A, James AE, III, Kumar S. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2): e0170698.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170698

Research has confirmed what many people know from experience: that paid sick days can make the workplace healthier. In 1 study, researchers found universal access to paid sick days (PSD) reduced influenza in the workplace by 6%.  To drill down on the influence PSD access has on decisions to stay home from work, or to stay home with a child who has flu or influenza-like-illness, researchers from University of Pittsburgh analyzed data from the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 12,901 households and 12,044 employees. They chose the 2009 survey because the numbers of influenza-like-illness and influenza cases were likely to have been higher due to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Of the workers surveyed, 64% had access to PSD. Access was associated significantly with gender, race/ethnicity, income, education, and number of employees in the workplace. In the group of 4,911 employees who had children, 68% had PSD.

The study highlighted some subgroups that face barriers to following CDC recommendations, such as staying home for up to 24 hours after symptoms subside. Hispanics, for instance, were significantly less likely to stay home when ill, but this was not necessarily an ethnic difference, the researchers say. Rather, they suggest, it may have had more to do with job security and workplace culture. They cite a survey done during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, in which Hispanics reported fewer resources at work than non-Hispanic whites, including paid sick leave, job security, and ability to work from home.

Women tend to be the main caregivers for children. In this study, women had a higher prevalence of staying home for a child’s illness than men, even after the researchers controlled for PSD access. Yet, in a different survey women also were more likely to report for work when ill, or when a child was ill. The researchers called this “presenteeism.”

The researchers underscore the importance of PSD laws in reducing the economic burden of healthy behavior in families. They note that in 2015, 35% of employees did not have access to PSD, and those employees were usually people with low income. Only 34% of those in the lowest-income group had access to PSD, compared with 89% in the highest income groups.

Source:

Piper K, Youk A, James AE, III, Kumar S. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2): e0170698.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170698

Phenylephrine, a sympathomimetic drug, is commonly used in eye exams to dilate the pupil of the eye and to differentiate scleritis from episcleritis. Common adverse effects (AEs) of phenylephrine include subjective burning, stinging with lacrimation, rebound hyperemia, and liberation of iris pigment into the anterior chamber. Less common, systemic AEs include tachycardia and elevation of systemic blood pressure. Although instances of allergic reactions are rare, phenylephrine has been reported to cause contact dermatitis, blepharoconjunctivitis, and as in this case, keratoconjunctivitis.

Case Report

An 83-year-old white male presented for a red eye evaluation 2 days after having undergone a comprehensive eye exam with dilation at the Malcom Randall VAMC clinic in Gainesville, Florida. The patient reported onset of blurred vision, which he described as looking through a fog. He further compared the feeling to pins sticking in his eyes. The patient noted he had experienced similar symptoms on a few other occasions following eye exams. At the most recent eye exam, proparacaine and fluorescein had been used for tonometry, and phenylephrine 2.5% and tropicamide 0.5% had been used for pupillary dilation.

The patient’s best-corrected visual acuity was counting fingers at 2 feet in the right eye (OD) and left eye (OS). The best-corrected visual acuity 2 days prior had been 20/20 OD and OS. Pupils and extraocular motilities were unremarkable. Intraocular pressures were not obtained due to concern for a possible adverse reaction to proparacaine.

Slit-lamp evaluation revealed the lids to be lax, erythematous, and edematous in both eyes (Figure 1).

The initial diagnosis was acute chemical conjunctivitis most likely due to an AE to proparacaine. The plan was to start the patient on antibiotic eye drops qid OU, prednisolone qid OU, and artificial tears every hour OU. The patient was scheduled to return to clinic 4 days later for an anterior segment follow-up.

At the follow-up visit, the patient reported significant visual improvement. His best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40-2 without improvement on pinhole OD and 20/50-2 with improvement to 20/30+ on pinhole OS. Slit-lamp evaluation revealed 1+ bulbar conjunctival injection OU, intact corneal epithelium OU, and no cells or flare in the anterior chambers OU. Due to improving punctate epitheliopathy, the frequency of the antibiotic drops, the prednisolone, and the artificial tears was reduced to bid. After 3 days, he was instructed to discontinue them. The patient was scheduled to return in 2 weeks for an anterior segment follow-up.

At the next follow-up visit, the patient reported that his vision had returned to normal, and he had no further ocular AEs. His best-corrected visual acuity was 20/20-2 OD and 20/20 OS. Slit-lamp evaluation revealed mild blepharitis OU, trace bulbar conjunctival injection OU, and complete resolution of the keratitis OU. The assessment was acute allergic conjunctivitis thought to be secondary to an AE to proparacaine OU, yet the need to rule out hypersensitivity to tropicamide and/or phenylephrine remained. The plan was to educate the patient of the possibility of allergic reaction on future visits and to recommend continued use of artificial tears as needed.

Through a careful and extensive chart review of all past visits, it was suspected that phenylephrine might be to blame rather than proparacaine. At the subsequent visit, the patient agreed to undergo testing to determine the culprit via instillation of proparacaine in one eye and tropicamide in the other. The patient had no reaction to either drop (checked 45 minutes after instillation and the following day). By process of elimination, phenylephrine was determined to be the offending agent.

Discussion

Following a thorough review of the patient’s chart, it was found that on other occasions he had presented with suspected allergic reactions following routine eye examinations. The patient reported he had experienced a reaction in 2007 but could not recall what drops were instilled in his eyes at the time. In addition, there was no documentation in his medical record of the subsequent reaction following that visit. Another reaction occurred in July 2010 with instillation of tropicamide 1%, phenylephrine 2.5%, and Fluress (fluorescein sodium and benoxinate hydrochloride ophthalmic solution USP). In October 2013, when tropicamide 0.5%, proparacaine, and fluorescein strips were instilled, there was no reaction. The next reaction occurred in October 2014, when tropicamide 0.5%, phenylephrine 2.5%, proparacaine, and fluorescein strips were instilled.

This careful review of past exam notes revealed that phenylephrine and Fluress were the only drops that had not been instilled at the October 2013 visit when no AE was reported. However, Fluress was an unlikely culprit since it was not instilled in October 2014, and the patient still experienced an AE. Therefore, the agent most likely responsible for the allergic reaction in the patient, as confirmed by a review of the past notes and by the aforementioned pharmacologic test, was deemed to be phenylephrine (Table).

Adverse reactions to topical ocular medications and specifically to diagnostic eye drops have long been recognized. Mathias, Camarasa, Barber, Ducombs, and Monsálvezhave reported on variations of conjunctivitis and periorbital erythema with positive patch testing to phenylephrine.^1-5 Geyer and colleagues reported on a study of 21 patients who had blepharoconjunctivitis after instillation of phenylephrine.⁶ In this case study patient, severe keratoconjunctivitis was the clinical manifestation observed.

Villarreal and colleagues studied 31 patients who had a previous reaction to mydriatic drops. The study found that phenylephrine was the drug that most frequently caused an AE (93.5%).⁷ One patient reacted to the preservative thimerosal, and 1 patient reacted to benoxiprocaine. Tropicamide was demonstrated to be very well tolerated as none of the patients tested positive on either the patch test or the pharmacologic test.

Tropicamide is a nonselective muscarinic antagonist commonly used for mydriasis due to its fast onset and short duration.⁸ Adverse reactions to tropicamide are rare. Three studies reported on patients who had a positive patch test to tropicamide.^9-11 However, the reaction was not provoked by direct instillation of tropicamide into the eye.

Common in-office topical anesthetics, proparacaine, tetracaine, benoxinate, and lidocaine also can cause AEs. Corneal toxicity is a well-known complication with topical anesthetic abuse, whereas allergic reactions are considered rare. The most common symptoms include stingingand discomfort upon instillation. Common signs include punctate corneal epithelial erosionsresulting indirectly from a decrease in reflex tearing, infrequent blinking, and increased tear evaporation.¹² Topical anesthetics also inhibit the migration of corneal epithelial cells and cause direct damage to the cells that are present, leading to impaired healing and epithelial defects.¹³

Manifestations of allergic reaction to topical anesthetics can include conjunctival hyperemia and edema, edematous eyelids, and lacrimation. One published case described a 60-year-old woman who developed eczematous dermatitis of the eyelids after ophthalmic anesthetic drops were instilled prior to laser surgery. Patch testing showed a positive response to benzocaine 5%, proparacaine, and tetracaine 0.5%.¹⁴

Preservatives, in general, can cause an allergic reaction. Benzalkonium chloride’s (BAK) cytotoxic sequelae include possible trabecular cell death in glaucoma patients, disruption of tear film stability (even at low concentrations), and immune-allergenic properties. One article reported BAK as one of the 30 most frequent allergens causing allergic periorbital dermatitis.¹⁵ Benzalkonium chloride is used in most brands of phenylephrine. However, preservatives in this patient’s case were ruled out as instigating agents since both phenylephrine and tropicamide contain the same preservative, BAK 0.01%, yet this patient did not develop a reaction to tropicamide when used without phenylephrine. Expired medications also were not considered to be a factor as none of the medications used on the patient were indeed expired (the Malcom Randall VAMC clinic maintains a strict policy of discarding medications 28 days after being opened).

Although uncommon, phenylephrine sometimes has been found to cause a type 4 hypersensitivity reaction, also known as cell-mediated or delayed-type hypersensitivity.¹⁶ First, helper T cells secrete cytokines. Activation of cytokines recruits and activates cytotoxic T cells, monocytes, and macrophages, leading to inflammation of the surrounding tissue. Examples of cell-mediated hypersensitivity include reactions to the tuberculin skin test and to poison ivy.

Type 1 hypersensitivity reactions, also known as immediate or anaphylactic hypersensitivity reactions, are not triggered by phenylephrine. In this type of reaction, IgE binds to the mast cell on initial exposure to an allergen. On second exposure, the allergen binds to the IgE, causing the mast cell to release mediators of inflammation, triggering physiologic responses. Examples of this type of hypersensitivity include those seen with penicillin, bee stings, hay fever, bronchial asthma, and food allergies, for example, to shellfish.

A toxic reaction’s mechanism differs from that of a type 4 hypersensitivity reaction. Toxic reactions occur due to direct cytotoxicity of a drug caused by a low or high pH and either hyper- or hypo-osmolarity. Toxicity can lead to corneal and conjunctival cell necrosis or induce apoptosis, stimulating inflammatory reactions. Clinically, toxic reactions will present with follicles, whereas allergic reactions will present with papillae.

The definitive diagnostic methods used to determine the allergic agent causing ocular or periocular AEs are patch testing and conjunctival challenge.⁷ Mathias, Camarasa, Barber, Ducombs,and Monsálvezused patch testing to confirm phenylephrine as the allergic agent in their series of cases. Patch testing entails the application of a small amount of an allergic agent that is taped onto the skin. The allergic agent is confirmed if the patient has a dermal reaction, wherein the area patched will become erythematous. When patch testing is negative or inconclusive, a conjunctival challenge is performed by instillation of the suspected allergic agent into the eye with subsequent observation to determine whether a reaction occurs. The sequelae found in Villarreal’s study included itching, lacrimation, edema, erythema, and sometimes blepharitis.⁷

A direct conjunctival challenge with the suspected culprit was not pursued in this patient’s case due to the known severity of the potential resulting reaction. The authors instead chose an indirect method of determining the implicating agent and used the process of elimination to whittle down the most likely suspect. A challenge with the medications suspected not to be likely offenders was undertaken. This spared the patient a likely repeat of the AE he had just recovered from.

Management

Allergic reactions can resolve without medical intervention. The first step is to remove the allergen. For delayed hypersensitivity reactions, treatments may include topical decongestants, cool compresses, and corticosteroids.⁸ The treatment for immediate hypersensitivity reaction differs from that of delayed hypersensitivity reaction in that antihistamines are used.^17,18

This patient reported receiving no treatment for his ocular symptoms following eye examinations in the past, yet he experienced complete resolution after each AE. In this case, both a steroid and a prophylactic antibiotic to facilitate a more rapid improvement were used.

Conclusion

Although uncommon, cases of allergic reaction to phenylephrine can occur. The incidence of phenylephrine allergy is 0.6%.6 The case study patient presented with a severe keratoconjunctivitis following routine eye examination with an accompanying history of adverse ocular signs and symptoms following multiple past exams.

It is important for all eye care clinicians to realize that AEs to diagnostic eye drops are possible and can occur following the most routine of visits. Such reactions can be caused by dilating agents, anesthetics, or preservatives, and these may be allergic or toxic. Clinicians should take special care to identify the instigating agent, and if possible, to avoid using such agents on patients during future exams. Clinicians also should understand how best to manage iatrogenic AEs when they encounter them in order to restore a patient’s visual function as quickly as possible.

Phenylephrine, a sympathomimetic drug, is commonly used in eye exams to dilate the pupil of the eye and to differentiate scleritis from episcleritis. Common adverse effects (AEs) of phenylephrine include subjective burning, stinging with lacrimation, rebound hyperemia, and liberation of iris pigment into the anterior chamber. Less common, systemic AEs include tachycardia and elevation of systemic blood pressure. Although instances of allergic reactions are rare, phenylephrine has been reported to cause contact dermatitis, blepharoconjunctivitis, and as in this case, keratoconjunctivitis.

Case Report

An 83-year-old white male presented for a red eye evaluation 2 days after having undergone a comprehensive eye exam with dilation at the Malcom Randall VAMC clinic in Gainesville, Florida. The patient reported onset of blurred vision, which he described as looking through a fog. He further compared the feeling to pins sticking in his eyes. The patient noted he had experienced similar symptoms on a few other occasions following eye exams. At the most recent eye exam, proparacaine and fluorescein had been used for tonometry, and phenylephrine 2.5% and tropicamide 0.5% had been used for pupillary dilation.

The patient’s best-corrected visual acuity was counting fingers at 2 feet in the right eye (OD) and left eye (OS). The best-corrected visual acuity 2 days prior had been 20/20 OD and OS. Pupils and extraocular motilities were unremarkable. Intraocular pressures were not obtained due to concern for a possible adverse reaction to proparacaine.

Slit-lamp evaluation revealed the lids to be lax, erythematous, and edematous in both eyes (Figure 1).

The initial diagnosis was acute chemical conjunctivitis most likely due to an AE to proparacaine. The plan was to start the patient on antibiotic eye drops qid OU, prednisolone qid OU, and artificial tears every hour OU. The patient was scheduled to return to clinic 4 days later for an anterior segment follow-up.

At the follow-up visit, the patient reported significant visual improvement. His best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40-2 without improvement on pinhole OD and 20/50-2 with improvement to 20/30+ on pinhole OS. Slit-lamp evaluation revealed 1+ bulbar conjunctival injection OU, intact corneal epithelium OU, and no cells or flare in the anterior chambers OU. Due to improving punctate epitheliopathy, the frequency of the antibiotic drops, the prednisolone, and the artificial tears was reduced to bid. After 3 days, he was instructed to discontinue them. The patient was scheduled to return in 2 weeks for an anterior segment follow-up.

At the next follow-up visit, the patient reported that his vision had returned to normal, and he had no further ocular AEs. His best-corrected visual acuity was 20/20-2 OD and 20/20 OS. Slit-lamp evaluation revealed mild blepharitis OU, trace bulbar conjunctival injection OU, and complete resolution of the keratitis OU. The assessment was acute allergic conjunctivitis thought to be secondary to an AE to proparacaine OU, yet the need to rule out hypersensitivity to tropicamide and/or phenylephrine remained. The plan was to educate the patient of the possibility of allergic reaction on future visits and to recommend continued use of artificial tears as needed.

Through a careful and extensive chart review of all past visits, it was suspected that phenylephrine might be to blame rather than proparacaine. At the subsequent visit, the patient agreed to undergo testing to determine the culprit via instillation of proparacaine in one eye and tropicamide in the other. The patient had no reaction to either drop (checked 45 minutes after instillation and the following day). By process of elimination, phenylephrine was determined to be the offending agent.

Discussion

Following a thorough review of the patient’s chart, it was found that on other occasions he had presented with suspected allergic reactions following routine eye examinations. The patient reported he had experienced a reaction in 2007 but could not recall what drops were instilled in his eyes at the time. In addition, there was no documentation in his medical record of the subsequent reaction following that visit. Another reaction occurred in July 2010 with instillation of tropicamide 1%, phenylephrine 2.5%, and Fluress (fluorescein sodium and benoxinate hydrochloride ophthalmic solution USP). In October 2013, when tropicamide 0.5%, proparacaine, and fluorescein strips were instilled, there was no reaction. The next reaction occurred in October 2014, when tropicamide 0.5%, phenylephrine 2.5%, proparacaine, and fluorescein strips were instilled.

This careful review of past exam notes revealed that phenylephrine and Fluress were the only drops that had not been instilled at the October 2013 visit when no AE was reported. However, Fluress was an unlikely culprit since it was not instilled in October 2014, and the patient still experienced an AE. Therefore, the agent most likely responsible for the allergic reaction in the patient, as confirmed by a review of the past notes and by the aforementioned pharmacologic test, was deemed to be phenylephrine (Table).

Adverse reactions to topical ocular medications and specifically to diagnostic eye drops have long been recognized. Mathias, Camarasa, Barber, Ducombs, and Monsálvezhave reported on variations of conjunctivitis and periorbital erythema with positive patch testing to phenylephrine.^1-5 Geyer and colleagues reported on a study of 21 patients who had blepharoconjunctivitis after instillation of phenylephrine.⁶ In this case study patient, severe keratoconjunctivitis was the clinical manifestation observed.

Villarreal and colleagues studied 31 patients who had a previous reaction to mydriatic drops. The study found that phenylephrine was the drug that most frequently caused an AE (93.5%).⁷ One patient reacted to the preservative thimerosal, and 1 patient reacted to benoxiprocaine. Tropicamide was demonstrated to be very well tolerated as none of the patients tested positive on either the patch test or the pharmacologic test.

Tropicamide is a nonselective muscarinic antagonist commonly used for mydriasis due to its fast onset and short duration.⁸ Adverse reactions to tropicamide are rare. Three studies reported on patients who had a positive patch test to tropicamide.^9-11 However, the reaction was not provoked by direct instillation of tropicamide into the eye.

Common in-office topical anesthetics, proparacaine, tetracaine, benoxinate, and lidocaine also can cause AEs. Corneal toxicity is a well-known complication with topical anesthetic abuse, whereas allergic reactions are considered rare. The most common symptoms include stingingand discomfort upon instillation. Common signs include punctate corneal epithelial erosionsresulting indirectly from a decrease in reflex tearing, infrequent blinking, and increased tear evaporation.¹² Topical anesthetics also inhibit the migration of corneal epithelial cells and cause direct damage to the cells that are present, leading to impaired healing and epithelial defects.¹³

Manifestations of allergic reaction to topical anesthetics can include conjunctival hyperemia and edema, edematous eyelids, and lacrimation. One published case described a 60-year-old woman who developed eczematous dermatitis of the eyelids after ophthalmic anesthetic drops were instilled prior to laser surgery. Patch testing showed a positive response to benzocaine 5%, proparacaine, and tetracaine 0.5%.¹⁴

Preservatives, in general, can cause an allergic reaction. Benzalkonium chloride’s (BAK) cytotoxic sequelae include possible trabecular cell death in glaucoma patients, disruption of tear film stability (even at low concentrations), and immune-allergenic properties. One article reported BAK as one of the 30 most frequent allergens causing allergic periorbital dermatitis.¹⁵ Benzalkonium chloride is used in most brands of phenylephrine. However, preservatives in this patient’s case were ruled out as instigating agents since both phenylephrine and tropicamide contain the same preservative, BAK 0.01%, yet this patient did not develop a reaction to tropicamide when used without phenylephrine. Expired medications also were not considered to be a factor as none of the medications used on the patient were indeed expired (the Malcom Randall VAMC clinic maintains a strict policy of discarding medications 28 days after being opened).

Although uncommon, phenylephrine sometimes has been found to cause a type 4 hypersensitivity reaction, also known as cell-mediated or delayed-type hypersensitivity.¹⁶ First, helper T cells secrete cytokines. Activation of cytokines recruits and activates cytotoxic T cells, monocytes, and macrophages, leading to inflammation of the surrounding tissue. Examples of cell-mediated hypersensitivity include reactions to the tuberculin skin test and to poison ivy.

Type 1 hypersensitivity reactions, also known as immediate or anaphylactic hypersensitivity reactions, are not triggered by phenylephrine. In this type of reaction, IgE binds to the mast cell on initial exposure to an allergen. On second exposure, the allergen binds to the IgE, causing the mast cell to release mediators of inflammation, triggering physiologic responses. Examples of this type of hypersensitivity include those seen with penicillin, bee stings, hay fever, bronchial asthma, and food allergies, for example, to shellfish.

A toxic reaction’s mechanism differs from that of a type 4 hypersensitivity reaction. Toxic reactions occur due to direct cytotoxicity of a drug caused by a low or high pH and either hyper- or hypo-osmolarity. Toxicity can lead to corneal and conjunctival cell necrosis or induce apoptosis, stimulating inflammatory reactions. Clinically, toxic reactions will present with follicles, whereas allergic reactions will present with papillae.

The definitive diagnostic methods used to determine the allergic agent causing ocular or periocular AEs are patch testing and conjunctival challenge.⁷ Mathias, Camarasa, Barber, Ducombs,and Monsálvezused patch testing to confirm phenylephrine as the allergic agent in their series of cases. Patch testing entails the application of a small amount of an allergic agent that is taped onto the skin. The allergic agent is confirmed if the patient has a dermal reaction, wherein the area patched will become erythematous. When patch testing is negative or inconclusive, a conjunctival challenge is performed by instillation of the suspected allergic agent into the eye with subsequent observation to determine whether a reaction occurs. The sequelae found in Villarreal’s study included itching, lacrimation, edema, erythema, and sometimes blepharitis.⁷

A direct conjunctival challenge with the suspected culprit was not pursued in this patient’s case due to the known severity of the potential resulting reaction. The authors instead chose an indirect method of determining the implicating agent and used the process of elimination to whittle down the most likely suspect. A challenge with the medications suspected not to be likely offenders was undertaken. This spared the patient a likely repeat of the AE he had just recovered from.

Management

Allergic reactions can resolve without medical intervention. The first step is to remove the allergen. For delayed hypersensitivity reactions, treatments may include topical decongestants, cool compresses, and corticosteroids.⁸ The treatment for immediate hypersensitivity reaction differs from that of delayed hypersensitivity reaction in that antihistamines are used.^17,18

This patient reported receiving no treatment for his ocular symptoms following eye examinations in the past, yet he experienced complete resolution after each AE. In this case, both a steroid and a prophylactic antibiotic to facilitate a more rapid improvement were used.

Conclusion

Although uncommon, cases of allergic reaction to phenylephrine can occur. The incidence of phenylephrine allergy is 0.6%.6 The case study patient presented with a severe keratoconjunctivitis following routine eye examination with an accompanying history of adverse ocular signs and symptoms following multiple past exams.

It is important for all eye care clinicians to realize that AEs to diagnostic eye drops are possible and can occur following the most routine of visits. Such reactions can be caused by dilating agents, anesthetics, or preservatives, and these may be allergic or toxic. Clinicians should take special care to identify the instigating agent, and if possible, to avoid using such agents on patients during future exams. Clinicians also should understand how best to manage iatrogenic AEs when they encounter them in order to restore a patient’s visual function as quickly as possible.

Phenylephrine, a sympathomimetic drug, is commonly used in eye exams to dilate the pupil of the eye and to differentiate scleritis from episcleritis. Common adverse effects (AEs) of phenylephrine include subjective burning, stinging with lacrimation, rebound hyperemia, and liberation of iris pigment into the anterior chamber. Less common, systemic AEs include tachycardia and elevation of systemic blood pressure. Although instances of allergic reactions are rare, phenylephrine has been reported to cause contact dermatitis, blepharoconjunctivitis, and as in this case, keratoconjunctivitis.

Case Report

An 83-year-old white male presented for a red eye evaluation 2 days after having undergone a comprehensive eye exam with dilation at the Malcom Randall VAMC clinic in Gainesville, Florida. The patient reported onset of blurred vision, which he described as looking through a fog. He further compared the feeling to pins sticking in his eyes. The patient noted he had experienced similar symptoms on a few other occasions following eye exams. At the most recent eye exam, proparacaine and fluorescein had been used for tonometry, and phenylephrine 2.5% and tropicamide 0.5% had been used for pupillary dilation.

The patient’s best-corrected visual acuity was counting fingers at 2 feet in the right eye (OD) and left eye (OS). The best-corrected visual acuity 2 days prior had been 20/20 OD and OS. Pupils and extraocular motilities were unremarkable. Intraocular pressures were not obtained due to concern for a possible adverse reaction to proparacaine.

Slit-lamp evaluation revealed the lids to be lax, erythematous, and edematous in both eyes (Figure 1).

The initial diagnosis was acute chemical conjunctivitis most likely due to an AE to proparacaine. The plan was to start the patient on antibiotic eye drops qid OU, prednisolone qid OU, and artificial tears every hour OU. The patient was scheduled to return to clinic 4 days later for an anterior segment follow-up.

At the follow-up visit, the patient reported significant visual improvement. His best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40-2 without improvement on pinhole OD and 20/50-2 with improvement to 20/30+ on pinhole OS. Slit-lamp evaluation revealed 1+ bulbar conjunctival injection OU, intact corneal epithelium OU, and no cells or flare in the anterior chambers OU. Due to improving punctate epitheliopathy, the frequency of the antibiotic drops, the prednisolone, and the artificial tears was reduced to bid. After 3 days, he was instructed to discontinue them. The patient was scheduled to return in 2 weeks for an anterior segment follow-up.

At the next follow-up visit, the patient reported that his vision had returned to normal, and he had no further ocular AEs. His best-corrected visual acuity was 20/20-2 OD and 20/20 OS. Slit-lamp evaluation revealed mild blepharitis OU, trace bulbar conjunctival injection OU, and complete resolution of the keratitis OU. The assessment was acute allergic conjunctivitis thought to be secondary to an AE to proparacaine OU, yet the need to rule out hypersensitivity to tropicamide and/or phenylephrine remained. The plan was to educate the patient of the possibility of allergic reaction on future visits and to recommend continued use of artificial tears as needed.

Through a careful and extensive chart review of all past visits, it was suspected that phenylephrine might be to blame rather than proparacaine. At the subsequent visit, the patient agreed to undergo testing to determine the culprit via instillation of proparacaine in one eye and tropicamide in the other. The patient had no reaction to either drop (checked 45 minutes after instillation and the following day). By process of elimination, phenylephrine was determined to be the offending agent.

Discussion

Following a thorough review of the patient’s chart, it was found that on other occasions he had presented with suspected allergic reactions following routine eye examinations. The patient reported he had experienced a reaction in 2007 but could not recall what drops were instilled in his eyes at the time. In addition, there was no documentation in his medical record of the subsequent reaction following that visit. Another reaction occurred in July 2010 with instillation of tropicamide 1%, phenylephrine 2.5%, and Fluress (fluorescein sodium and benoxinate hydrochloride ophthalmic solution USP). In October 2013, when tropicamide 0.5%, proparacaine, and fluorescein strips were instilled, there was no reaction. The next reaction occurred in October 2014, when tropicamide 0.5%, phenylephrine 2.5%, proparacaine, and fluorescein strips were instilled.

This careful review of past exam notes revealed that phenylephrine and Fluress were the only drops that had not been instilled at the October 2013 visit when no AE was reported. However, Fluress was an unlikely culprit since it was not instilled in October 2014, and the patient still experienced an AE. Therefore, the agent most likely responsible for the allergic reaction in the patient, as confirmed by a review of the past notes and by the aforementioned pharmacologic test, was deemed to be phenylephrine (Table).

Adverse reactions to topical ocular medications and specifically to diagnostic eye drops have long been recognized. Mathias, Camarasa, Barber, Ducombs, and Monsálvezhave reported on variations of conjunctivitis and periorbital erythema with positive patch testing to phenylephrine.^1-5 Geyer and colleagues reported on a study of 21 patients who had blepharoconjunctivitis after instillation of phenylephrine.⁶ In this case study patient, severe keratoconjunctivitis was the clinical manifestation observed.

Villarreal and colleagues studied 31 patients who had a previous reaction to mydriatic drops. The study found that phenylephrine was the drug that most frequently caused an AE (93.5%).⁷ One patient reacted to the preservative thimerosal, and 1 patient reacted to benoxiprocaine. Tropicamide was demonstrated to be very well tolerated as none of the patients tested positive on either the patch test or the pharmacologic test.

Tropicamide is a nonselective muscarinic antagonist commonly used for mydriasis due to its fast onset and short duration.⁸ Adverse reactions to tropicamide are rare. Three studies reported on patients who had a positive patch test to tropicamide.^9-11 However, the reaction was not provoked by direct instillation of tropicamide into the eye.

Common in-office topical anesthetics, proparacaine, tetracaine, benoxinate, and lidocaine also can cause AEs. Corneal toxicity is a well-known complication with topical anesthetic abuse, whereas allergic reactions are considered rare. The most common symptoms include stingingand discomfort upon instillation. Common signs include punctate corneal epithelial erosionsresulting indirectly from a decrease in reflex tearing, infrequent blinking, and increased tear evaporation.¹² Topical anesthetics also inhibit the migration of corneal epithelial cells and cause direct damage to the cells that are present, leading to impaired healing and epithelial defects.¹³

Manifestations of allergic reaction to topical anesthetics can include conjunctival hyperemia and edema, edematous eyelids, and lacrimation. One published case described a 60-year-old woman who developed eczematous dermatitis of the eyelids after ophthalmic anesthetic drops were instilled prior to laser surgery. Patch testing showed a positive response to benzocaine 5%, proparacaine, and tetracaine 0.5%.¹⁴

Preservatives, in general, can cause an allergic reaction. Benzalkonium chloride’s (BAK) cytotoxic sequelae include possible trabecular cell death in glaucoma patients, disruption of tear film stability (even at low concentrations), and immune-allergenic properties. One article reported BAK as one of the 30 most frequent allergens causing allergic periorbital dermatitis.¹⁵ Benzalkonium chloride is used in most brands of phenylephrine. However, preservatives in this patient’s case were ruled out as instigating agents since both phenylephrine and tropicamide contain the same preservative, BAK 0.01%, yet this patient did not develop a reaction to tropicamide when used without phenylephrine. Expired medications also were not considered to be a factor as none of the medications used on the patient were indeed expired (the Malcom Randall VAMC clinic maintains a strict policy of discarding medications 28 days after being opened).

Although uncommon, phenylephrine sometimes has been found to cause a type 4 hypersensitivity reaction, also known as cell-mediated or delayed-type hypersensitivity.¹⁶ First, helper T cells secrete cytokines. Activation of cytokines recruits and activates cytotoxic T cells, monocytes, and macrophages, leading to inflammation of the surrounding tissue. Examples of cell-mediated hypersensitivity include reactions to the tuberculin skin test and to poison ivy.

Type 1 hypersensitivity reactions, also known as immediate or anaphylactic hypersensitivity reactions, are not triggered by phenylephrine. In this type of reaction, IgE binds to the mast cell on initial exposure to an allergen. On second exposure, the allergen binds to the IgE, causing the mast cell to release mediators of inflammation, triggering physiologic responses. Examples of this type of hypersensitivity include those seen with penicillin, bee stings, hay fever, bronchial asthma, and food allergies, for example, to shellfish.

A toxic reaction’s mechanism differs from that of a type 4 hypersensitivity reaction. Toxic reactions occur due to direct cytotoxicity of a drug caused by a low or high pH and either hyper- or hypo-osmolarity. Toxicity can lead to corneal and conjunctival cell necrosis or induce apoptosis, stimulating inflammatory reactions. Clinically, toxic reactions will present with follicles, whereas allergic reactions will present with papillae.

The definitive diagnostic methods used to determine the allergic agent causing ocular or periocular AEs are patch testing and conjunctival challenge.⁷ Mathias, Camarasa, Barber, Ducombs,and Monsálvezused patch testing to confirm phenylephrine as the allergic agent in their series of cases. Patch testing entails the application of a small amount of an allergic agent that is taped onto the skin. The allergic agent is confirmed if the patient has a dermal reaction, wherein the area patched will become erythematous. When patch testing is negative or inconclusive, a conjunctival challenge is performed by instillation of the suspected allergic agent into the eye with subsequent observation to determine whether a reaction occurs. The sequelae found in Villarreal’s study included itching, lacrimation, edema, erythema, and sometimes blepharitis.⁷

A direct conjunctival challenge with the suspected culprit was not pursued in this patient’s case due to the known severity of the potential resulting reaction. The authors instead chose an indirect method of determining the implicating agent and used the process of elimination to whittle down the most likely suspect. A challenge with the medications suspected not to be likely offenders was undertaken. This spared the patient a likely repeat of the AE he had just recovered from.

Management

Allergic reactions can resolve without medical intervention. The first step is to remove the allergen. For delayed hypersensitivity reactions, treatments may include topical decongestants, cool compresses, and corticosteroids.⁸ The treatment for immediate hypersensitivity reaction differs from that of delayed hypersensitivity reaction in that antihistamines are used.^17,18

This patient reported receiving no treatment for his ocular symptoms following eye examinations in the past, yet he experienced complete resolution after each AE. In this case, both a steroid and a prophylactic antibiotic to facilitate a more rapid improvement were used.

Conclusion

Although uncommon, cases of allergic reaction to phenylephrine can occur. The incidence of phenylephrine allergy is 0.6%.6 The case study patient presented with a severe keratoconjunctivitis following routine eye examination with an accompanying history of adverse ocular signs and symptoms following multiple past exams.

It is important for all eye care clinicians to realize that AEs to diagnostic eye drops are possible and can occur following the most routine of visits. Such reactions can be caused by dilating agents, anesthetics, or preservatives, and these may be allergic or toxic. Clinicians should take special care to identify the instigating agent, and if possible, to avoid using such agents on patients during future exams. Clinicians also should understand how best to manage iatrogenic AEs when they encounter them in order to restore a patient’s visual function as quickly as possible.

The HHS has announced more than $50 million in funding for 75 health centers in 23 states, Puerto Rico, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

One in 13 people nationwide depend on a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health center for preventive and primary health care needs. Among the special populations served are nearly 2 million homeless patients, 910,172 agricultural workers, and 305,520 veterans.

Health centers are community based and patient directed, delivering comprehensive, culturally competent primary care. They also often link to pharmacy, mental health, substance abuse, and oral health services in areas where economic, geographic, or cultural barriers limit access to affordable health care services.

Although the health centers serve patients who are often sicker and more at risk than is the general population, the quality of care “equals and often surpasses” that provided by other primary care providers, HRSA says. For example, > 93% of HRSA-funded health centers met or exceeded at least 1 goal of Healthy People 2020 for clinical performance in 2015. And > 68% of health centers are recognized by national accrediting organizations as Patient-Centered Medical Homes, an advanced model of team-based primary care.

The health centers, which started 50 years ago with just 2, have expanded to > 9,800 clinic sites. Between 2008 -2015, HRSA-supported centers increased by 27%, and the number of patients increased by 42% to more than 7 million more patients. In 2015 alone, HRSA funded nearly 430 new center sites. Health centers already provide care to  more than 24 million people; this new funding will extend care to about 240,000 additional patients.

The HHS has announced more than $50 million in funding for 75 health centers in 23 states, Puerto Rico, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

One in 13 people nationwide depend on a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health center for preventive and primary health care needs. Among the special populations served are nearly 2 million homeless patients, 910,172 agricultural workers, and 305,520 veterans.

Health centers are community based and patient directed, delivering comprehensive, culturally competent primary care. They also often link to pharmacy, mental health, substance abuse, and oral health services in areas where economic, geographic, or cultural barriers limit access to affordable health care services.

Although the health centers serve patients who are often sicker and more at risk than is the general population, the quality of care “equals and often surpasses” that provided by other primary care providers, HRSA says. For example, > 93% of HRSA-funded health centers met or exceeded at least 1 goal of Healthy People 2020 for clinical performance in 2015. And > 68% of health centers are recognized by national accrediting organizations as Patient-Centered Medical Homes, an advanced model of team-based primary care.

The health centers, which started 50 years ago with just 2, have expanded to > 9,800 clinic sites. Between 2008 -2015, HRSA-supported centers increased by 27%, and the number of patients increased by 42% to more than 7 million more patients. In 2015 alone, HRSA funded nearly 430 new center sites. Health centers already provide care to  more than 24 million people; this new funding will extend care to about 240,000 additional patients.

The HHS has announced more than $50 million in funding for 75 health centers in 23 states, Puerto Rico, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

One in 13 people nationwide depend on a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-funded health center for preventive and primary health care needs. Among the special populations served are nearly 2 million homeless patients, 910,172 agricultural workers, and 305,520 veterans.

Health centers are community based and patient directed, delivering comprehensive, culturally competent primary care. They also often link to pharmacy, mental health, substance abuse, and oral health services in areas where economic, geographic, or cultural barriers limit access to affordable health care services.

Although the health centers serve patients who are often sicker and more at risk than is the general population, the quality of care “equals and often surpasses” that provided by other primary care providers, HRSA says. For example, > 93% of HRSA-funded health centers met or exceeded at least 1 goal of Healthy People 2020 for clinical performance in 2015. And > 68% of health centers are recognized by national accrediting organizations as Patient-Centered Medical Homes, an advanced model of team-based primary care.

The health centers, which started 50 years ago with just 2, have expanded to > 9,800 clinic sites. Between 2008 -2015, HRSA-supported centers increased by 27%, and the number of patients increased by 42% to more than 7 million more patients. In 2015 alone, HRSA funded nearly 430 new center sites. Health centers already provide care to  more than 24 million people; this new funding will extend care to about 240,000 additional patients.

Americans who live in rural areas are more likely than their urban counterparts are to die of the 5 leading causes of death, according to a CDC study of data from the National Vital Statistics System.

In 2014, 25,000 rural residents died of heart disease, 19,000 of cancer, 12,000 of unintentional injuries, 11,000 of chronic lower respiratory disease, and 4,000 of stroke. The study also found that unintentional injury deaths were about 50% higher in rural areas than in urban areas, partly due to a greater risk of death in vehicle crashes and of opioid overdoses. The problem is compounded by the fact that the distance between health care facilities and trauma centers can make rapid access to specialized health care difficult.

The study researchers say several factors could influence the rural-urban gap. For instance, many of the deaths are associated with sociodemographic differences. Rural residents tend to be older, poorer, and sicker with limited physical activity due to chronic conditions. But that “striking gap” in health can be closed, says CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, by better understanding and addressing the health threats that put rural Americans at risk.

CDC suggests, for instance, that health care providers in rural areas:

• Screen patients for high blood pressure and make control a quality improvement goal;
• Increase cancer prevention and early detection—for example, by participating in state-level comprehensive control coalitions, which focus on prevention, education, screening, access, support, and overall good health;
• Encourage physical activity and healthy eating to reduce obesity;
• Encourage patients to stop smoking;
• Promote vehicle safety (rural residents are less likely to use seatbelts); and
• Engage in safe prescribing of opioids for pain, and use nonpharmacologic therapies

The report and a companion commentary are part of a new rural health series in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which houses the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, will collaborate with the CDC on the series and help promote the findings and recommendations to rural communities.

Americans who live in rural areas are more likely than their urban counterparts are to die of the 5 leading causes of death, according to a CDC study of data from the National Vital Statistics System.

In 2014, 25,000 rural residents died of heart disease, 19,000 of cancer, 12,000 of unintentional injuries, 11,000 of chronic lower respiratory disease, and 4,000 of stroke. The study also found that unintentional injury deaths were about 50% higher in rural areas than in urban areas, partly due to a greater risk of death in vehicle crashes and of opioid overdoses. The problem is compounded by the fact that the distance between health care facilities and trauma centers can make rapid access to specialized health care difficult.

The study researchers say several factors could influence the rural-urban gap. For instance, many of the deaths are associated with sociodemographic differences. Rural residents tend to be older, poorer, and sicker with limited physical activity due to chronic conditions. But that “striking gap” in health can be closed, says CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, by better understanding and addressing the health threats that put rural Americans at risk.

CDC suggests, for instance, that health care providers in rural areas:

• Screen patients for high blood pressure and make control a quality improvement goal;
• Increase cancer prevention and early detection—for example, by participating in state-level comprehensive control coalitions, which focus on prevention, education, screening, access, support, and overall good health;
• Encourage physical activity and healthy eating to reduce obesity;
• Encourage patients to stop smoking;
• Promote vehicle safety (rural residents are less likely to use seatbelts); and
• Engage in safe prescribing of opioids for pain, and use nonpharmacologic therapies

The report and a companion commentary are part of a new rural health series in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which houses the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, will collaborate with the CDC on the series and help promote the findings and recommendations to rural communities.

Americans who live in rural areas are more likely than their urban counterparts are to die of the 5 leading causes of death, according to a CDC study of data from the National Vital Statistics System.

In 2014, 25,000 rural residents died of heart disease, 19,000 of cancer, 12,000 of unintentional injuries, 11,000 of chronic lower respiratory disease, and 4,000 of stroke. The study also found that unintentional injury deaths were about 50% higher in rural areas than in urban areas, partly due to a greater risk of death in vehicle crashes and of opioid overdoses. The problem is compounded by the fact that the distance between health care facilities and trauma centers can make rapid access to specialized health care difficult.

The study researchers say several factors could influence the rural-urban gap. For instance, many of the deaths are associated with sociodemographic differences. Rural residents tend to be older, poorer, and sicker with limited physical activity due to chronic conditions. But that “striking gap” in health can be closed, says CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, MPH, by better understanding and addressing the health threats that put rural Americans at risk.

CDC suggests, for instance, that health care providers in rural areas:

• Screen patients for high blood pressure and make control a quality improvement goal;
• Increase cancer prevention and early detection—for example, by participating in state-level comprehensive control coalitions, which focus on prevention, education, screening, access, support, and overall good health;
• Encourage physical activity and healthy eating to reduce obesity;
• Encourage patients to stop smoking;
• Promote vehicle safety (rural residents are less likely to use seatbelts); and
• Engage in safe prescribing of opioids for pain, and use nonpharmacologic therapies

The report and a companion commentary are part of a new rural health series in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which houses the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, will collaborate with the CDC on the series and help promote the findings and recommendations to rural communities.

Ginsenosides are pharmacologically active components of ginseng, which often is used to relieve coughs and colds. They also have been found to have antineoplastic, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and antifungal properties; other studies suggest neuroprotective properties as well. Ginsenosides may act against coxsackievirus B3, enterovirus 71, human rhinovirus 3, and hemagglutinating virus of Japan (HVJ) infection. But do they have an antiviral effect on influenza?

Related: A New Kind of Flu Drug

Researchers from University Health Network & Shantou University Medical College and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Immunopathology, both in China, and University of Toronto in Canada conducted a study in mice of the anti-influenza properties of ginseng and ginseng-derived compounds both in vitro and in vivo. They found that ginsenosides exerted “strong antiviral activity” to 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus. Ginsenoside protected the animals from infection and lowered viral titers in their lungs.

Sugars were the key to the effectiveness of the ginsenosides, which are composed of a steroid skeleton with various sugar groups attached. The researchers note that previous studies have shown that ginsenosides’ anticancer activity and antioxidant activity are related to the type and position of sugar moieties.

Related: How Common is Flu Without Fever?

The pilot experiment did not have negative or toxic effects on the animals or in cell proliferation in vitro, thus “defining the nontoxic nature and therapeutic value of these compounds,” the researchers say. They also point out that in phase 2 randomized clinical trials in children, oral consumption of ginseng extract as an alternative influenza treatment did not result in severe adverse effects. They suggest that their findings could spur other research into a novel antiviral drug for influenza.

Source:

Dong W, Farooqui A, Leon AJ, Kelvin DJ. PloS One. 2017;12(2):e0171936.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171936.

Ginsenosides are pharmacologically active components of ginseng, which often is used to relieve coughs and colds. They also have been found to have antineoplastic, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and antifungal properties; other studies suggest neuroprotective properties as well. Ginsenosides may act against coxsackievirus B3, enterovirus 71, human rhinovirus 3, and hemagglutinating virus of Japan (HVJ) infection. But do they have an antiviral effect on influenza?

Related: A New Kind of Flu Drug

Researchers from University Health Network & Shantou University Medical College and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Immunopathology, both in China, and University of Toronto in Canada conducted a study in mice of the anti-influenza properties of ginseng and ginseng-derived compounds both in vitro and in vivo. They found that ginsenosides exerted “strong antiviral activity” to 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus. Ginsenoside protected the animals from infection and lowered viral titers in their lungs.

Sugars were the key to the effectiveness of the ginsenosides, which are composed of a steroid skeleton with various sugar groups attached. The researchers note that previous studies have shown that ginsenosides’ anticancer activity and antioxidant activity are related to the type and position of sugar moieties.

Related: How Common is Flu Without Fever?

The pilot experiment did not have negative or toxic effects on the animals or in cell proliferation in vitro, thus “defining the nontoxic nature and therapeutic value of these compounds,” the researchers say. They also point out that in phase 2 randomized clinical trials in children, oral consumption of ginseng extract as an alternative influenza treatment did not result in severe adverse effects. They suggest that their findings could spur other research into a novel antiviral drug for influenza.

Source:

Dong W, Farooqui A, Leon AJ, Kelvin DJ. PloS One. 2017;12(2):e0171936.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171936.

Ginsenosides are pharmacologically active components of ginseng, which often is used to relieve coughs and colds. They also have been found to have antineoplastic, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and antifungal properties; other studies suggest neuroprotective properties as well. Ginsenosides may act against coxsackievirus B3, enterovirus 71, human rhinovirus 3, and hemagglutinating virus of Japan (HVJ) infection. But do they have an antiviral effect on influenza?

Related: A New Kind of Flu Drug

Researchers from University Health Network & Shantou University Medical College and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Immunopathology, both in China, and University of Toronto in Canada conducted a study in mice of the anti-influenza properties of ginseng and ginseng-derived compounds both in vitro and in vivo. They found that ginsenosides exerted “strong antiviral activity” to 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus. Ginsenoside protected the animals from infection and lowered viral titers in their lungs.

Sugars were the key to the effectiveness of the ginsenosides, which are composed of a steroid skeleton with various sugar groups attached. The researchers note that previous studies have shown that ginsenosides’ anticancer activity and antioxidant activity are related to the type and position of sugar moieties.

Related: How Common is Flu Without Fever?

The pilot experiment did not have negative or toxic effects on the animals or in cell proliferation in vitro, thus “defining the nontoxic nature and therapeutic value of these compounds,” the researchers say. They also point out that in phase 2 randomized clinical trials in children, oral consumption of ginseng extract as an alternative influenza treatment did not result in severe adverse effects. They suggest that their findings could spur other research into a novel antiviral drug for influenza.

Source:

Dong W, Farooqui A, Leon AJ, Kelvin DJ. PloS One. 2017;12(2):e0171936.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171936.

Nearly half of a group of homeless and formerly homeless veterans reported experiencing food insecurity, according to VA researchers. More than one-quarter of those said they’d averaged only 1 meal a day.

Researchers screened 270 new patients who enrolled in 1 of 6 VA primary care clinics. Screening began with a single question: “In the past month, were there times when the food for you just did not last, and there was no money to buy more?” Patients who answered yes were then asked where they got their food, how many meals per day they ate, whether they prepared their meals, whether they received food stamps, whether they had diabetes, and whether they had symptoms of hypoglycemia.

Of the respondents, 63% were living in their own apartment, and 26% were in a transitional housing program where they were responsible for some of their meals. Of the patients who reported food insecurity, 87% prepared their meals, with half relying on food they bought, 23% on food from soup kitchens and food pantries, 15% from shelters, 19% from family and friends. About half (47%) were receiving food stamps.

One-fifth of the patients had diabetes or prediabetes, and 44% reported hypoglycemia symptoms when without food. The researchers point out that the consequences of food insecurity are “significant and potentially life threatening.” They cite another study that found risk for hospital admissions for hypoglycemia rose 27% in the last week of the month among low-income populations, typically when food stamps and supplies at food pantries ran low or were exhausted.

The study revealed that asking about only food insecurity was not enough, the researchers say. “The additional context provided by the follow-up questions and the breadth of different responses underscored that the needs of these patients extend beyond those available from 1 health care provider or 1 health care discipline.”

Both patients and health care providers endorsed the screening program. One staff member, for instance, called the program a good rapport builder. No team found the questions burdensome, the researchers say. In fact,4  teams said the follow-up questions highlighted the complexity of issues underlying food insecurity and the need for a well-integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the problem.

Nearly half of a group of homeless and formerly homeless veterans reported experiencing food insecurity, according to VA researchers. More than one-quarter of those said they’d averaged only 1 meal a day.

Researchers screened 270 new patients who enrolled in 1 of 6 VA primary care clinics. Screening began with a single question: “In the past month, were there times when the food for you just did not last, and there was no money to buy more?” Patients who answered yes were then asked where they got their food, how many meals per day they ate, whether they prepared their meals, whether they received food stamps, whether they had diabetes, and whether they had symptoms of hypoglycemia.

Of the respondents, 63% were living in their own apartment, and 26% were in a transitional housing program where they were responsible for some of their meals. Of the patients who reported food insecurity, 87% prepared their meals, with half relying on food they bought, 23% on food from soup kitchens and food pantries, 15% from shelters, 19% from family and friends. About half (47%) were receiving food stamps.

One-fifth of the patients had diabetes or prediabetes, and 44% reported hypoglycemia symptoms when without food. The researchers point out that the consequences of food insecurity are “significant and potentially life threatening.” They cite another study that found risk for hospital admissions for hypoglycemia rose 27% in the last week of the month among low-income populations, typically when food stamps and supplies at food pantries ran low or were exhausted.

The study revealed that asking about only food insecurity was not enough, the researchers say. “The additional context provided by the follow-up questions and the breadth of different responses underscored that the needs of these patients extend beyond those available from 1 health care provider or 1 health care discipline.”

Both patients and health care providers endorsed the screening program. One staff member, for instance, called the program a good rapport builder. No team found the questions burdensome, the researchers say. In fact,4  teams said the follow-up questions highlighted the complexity of issues underlying food insecurity and the need for a well-integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the problem.

Nearly half of a group of homeless and formerly homeless veterans reported experiencing food insecurity, according to VA researchers. More than one-quarter of those said they’d averaged only 1 meal a day.

Researchers screened 270 new patients who enrolled in 1 of 6 VA primary care clinics. Screening began with a single question: “In the past month, were there times when the food for you just did not last, and there was no money to buy more?” Patients who answered yes were then asked where they got their food, how many meals per day they ate, whether they prepared their meals, whether they received food stamps, whether they had diabetes, and whether they had symptoms of hypoglycemia.

Of the respondents, 63% were living in their own apartment, and 26% were in a transitional housing program where they were responsible for some of their meals. Of the patients who reported food insecurity, 87% prepared their meals, with half relying on food they bought, 23% on food from soup kitchens and food pantries, 15% from shelters, 19% from family and friends. About half (47%) were receiving food stamps.

One-fifth of the patients had diabetes or prediabetes, and 44% reported hypoglycemia symptoms when without food. The researchers point out that the consequences of food insecurity are “significant and potentially life threatening.” They cite another study that found risk for hospital admissions for hypoglycemia rose 27% in the last week of the month among low-income populations, typically when food stamps and supplies at food pantries ran low or were exhausted.

The study revealed that asking about only food insecurity was not enough, the researchers say. “The additional context provided by the follow-up questions and the breadth of different responses underscored that the needs of these patients extend beyond those available from 1 health care provider or 1 health care discipline.”

Both patients and health care providers endorsed the screening program. One staff member, for instance, called the program a good rapport builder. No team found the questions burdensome, the researchers say. In fact,4  teams said the follow-up questions highlighted the complexity of issues underlying food insecurity and the need for a well-integrated, multidisciplinary approach to the problem.