User login
For MD-IQ use only
Pfizer halts distribution of stop-smoking pill Chantix
The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.
Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.
“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.
The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.
The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.
Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.
In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.
Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.
“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.
The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.
The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.
Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.
In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.
Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.
“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.
The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.
The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.
Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.
In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Few clinical guidelines exist for treating post-COVID symptoms
As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.
Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.
Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.
which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.
While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.
It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.
One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.
It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.
The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.
Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.
Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.
which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.
While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.
It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.
One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.
It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.
The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.
Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.
Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.
which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.
While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.
It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.
One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.
It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.
The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.
Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].
FIND: A framework for success as a first-year hospitalist
Congratulations! You’re about to start your first year as a hospitalist, and in many cases your first real job. Hospital medicine is an incredibly rewarding subspecialty, but the progression from resident to attending physician can be daunting. To facilitate this transition, we present FIND (Familiarity, Identity, Network, and Direction) – a novel, sequential framework for success as a first-year hospitalist. For each component, we provide a narrative overview and a summary bullet point for quick reference.
Familiarity
- Lay the foundation: Learn the ins and outs of your job, EMR, and team.
Familiarize yourself with your surroundings. Know where your patients are located, where you can document, where to find equipment for procedures, and how to reach information technology. Proactively set up the electronic medical record on your home computer and phone. Make sure to review your responsibilities, including your call schedule, your shifts, your assigned patient panel, when you can leave campus, and how people should contact you. Also, others should know your expectations of them, especially if you are working with trainees.
Maintain a file with all of your orientation materials, including phone numbers and emails of key personnel. Know who your people are – who can access your calendar, who you can call with a clinical question or to escalate care, who can assist you with billing, and who helps with the throughput of your patients in the hospital. Take time to review your benefits, including parental leave, insurance coverage, retirement planning, vacation time, and ancillary services like laundry for your white coat. Familiarizing yourself with these basics will provide comfort and lay the foundation for your first year.
Identity
- Perform self-reflection: Overcome imposter syndrome and invest in hobbies.
One of the fundamental realizations that will occur with your first hospitalist job is that you are the attending. You walk in with a vision of your first job; be prepared to be surprised. You have earned the privilege of deciding on patient plans, and you are no longer obligated to staff with a senior physician. This is both empowering and terrifying. In a way, it may oddly remind you of intern year. A new hospital, new EMR, new colleagues, and imposter syndrome will trick you into doubting your decisions.
How to battle it? Positive thinking. You do know the basics of inpatient medicine and you do have a support system to cheer you on. As part of imposter syndrome, you may feel pressured to focus solely on work. Yet, your first job as a hospitalist is finally an amazing opportunity to focus on you. What hobbies have you been neglecting: cooking, photography, reading, more time with family, a new pet? You have the power to schedule your off-weeks. Are you interested in academics? Reserve a portion of your time off to explore scholarship opportunities at your institution. Your first job as a hospitalist is a chance to develop your identity, both as a physician and as an individual.
Network
- Engage your support system: Communicate with nursing, administration, colleagues.
Networking, or building a web of mutually beneficial professional relationships, is imperative for long-term career success. Hospitalists should focus on developing their network across multiple departments, such as nursing, subspecialties, medical education, and hospital administration. Curating a broad network will increase your visibility within your organization, showcase your unique services, and demonstrate your value.
To make networking encounters impactful, express interest, actively listen, ask relevant questions, and seek areas of mutual benefit. It’s equally important to cultivate these new relationships after the initial encounter and to demonstrate how your skill set will aid colleagues in achieving their professional goals. Over time, as you establish your niche, deliberate networking with those who share similar interests can lead to a wealth of new experiences and opportunities. Intentionally mastering networking early in your career provides insight into different aspects of the hospital system, new perspectives on ideas, and access to valuable guidance from other professionals. Engaging in networking to establish your support system is an essential step towards success as a first-year hospitalist.
Direction
- Visualize your path: Find a mentor and develop a mission statement and career plan.
Once you’re familiar with your work environment, confident in your identity, and acquainted with your support network, you’re ready for the final step – direction. Hospital medicine offers many professional avenues and clarifying your career path is challenging when attempted alone. A mentor is the necessary catalyst to find direction and purpose.
Selecting and engaging with a mentor will bolster your professional advancement, academic productivity, and most importantly, career satisfaction.1 At its best, mentorship is a symbiotic relationship. Your mentor should inspire you, challenge you, and support your growth and emotional well-being. In turn, as the mentee, you should be proactive, establish expectations, and take responsibility for maintaining communication to ensure a successful relationship. As your career takes shape over time, you may require a mentorship team to fulfill your unique needs.
When you’ve established a relationship with your mentor, take time to develop 1-year and 5-year plans. Your 1-year plan should focus on a few “quick wins,” often projects or opportunities at your home institution. Small victories in your first year will boost your confidence, motivation, and sense of control. Your 5-year plan should delineate the steps necessary to make your first major career transition, such as from instructor to assistant professor. Working with your mentor to draft a career mission statement is a useful first step in this process. Beginning with the end in mind, will help you visualize your direction.2
We hope that the FIND framework will help you find your path to success as a first-year hospitalist.
Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist and instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. Dr. Ashford is assistant professor and program director, department of internal medicine/pediatrics, at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Crecelius is assistant professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis. This article is sponsored by the SHM Physicians in Training committee, which submits quarterly content to the Hospitalist on topics relevant to trainees and early -career hospitalists.
References
1. Zerzan JT et al. Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med. 2009;84:140-4. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181906e8f.
2. Covey F. The seven habits of highly effective people. 25th anniversary edition. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2013.
Congratulations! You’re about to start your first year as a hospitalist, and in many cases your first real job. Hospital medicine is an incredibly rewarding subspecialty, but the progression from resident to attending physician can be daunting. To facilitate this transition, we present FIND (Familiarity, Identity, Network, and Direction) – a novel, sequential framework for success as a first-year hospitalist. For each component, we provide a narrative overview and a summary bullet point for quick reference.
Familiarity
- Lay the foundation: Learn the ins and outs of your job, EMR, and team.
Familiarize yourself with your surroundings. Know where your patients are located, where you can document, where to find equipment for procedures, and how to reach information technology. Proactively set up the electronic medical record on your home computer and phone. Make sure to review your responsibilities, including your call schedule, your shifts, your assigned patient panel, when you can leave campus, and how people should contact you. Also, others should know your expectations of them, especially if you are working with trainees.
Maintain a file with all of your orientation materials, including phone numbers and emails of key personnel. Know who your people are – who can access your calendar, who you can call with a clinical question or to escalate care, who can assist you with billing, and who helps with the throughput of your patients in the hospital. Take time to review your benefits, including parental leave, insurance coverage, retirement planning, vacation time, and ancillary services like laundry for your white coat. Familiarizing yourself with these basics will provide comfort and lay the foundation for your first year.
Identity
- Perform self-reflection: Overcome imposter syndrome and invest in hobbies.
One of the fundamental realizations that will occur with your first hospitalist job is that you are the attending. You walk in with a vision of your first job; be prepared to be surprised. You have earned the privilege of deciding on patient plans, and you are no longer obligated to staff with a senior physician. This is both empowering and terrifying. In a way, it may oddly remind you of intern year. A new hospital, new EMR, new colleagues, and imposter syndrome will trick you into doubting your decisions.
How to battle it? Positive thinking. You do know the basics of inpatient medicine and you do have a support system to cheer you on. As part of imposter syndrome, you may feel pressured to focus solely on work. Yet, your first job as a hospitalist is finally an amazing opportunity to focus on you. What hobbies have you been neglecting: cooking, photography, reading, more time with family, a new pet? You have the power to schedule your off-weeks. Are you interested in academics? Reserve a portion of your time off to explore scholarship opportunities at your institution. Your first job as a hospitalist is a chance to develop your identity, both as a physician and as an individual.
Network
- Engage your support system: Communicate with nursing, administration, colleagues.
Networking, or building a web of mutually beneficial professional relationships, is imperative for long-term career success. Hospitalists should focus on developing their network across multiple departments, such as nursing, subspecialties, medical education, and hospital administration. Curating a broad network will increase your visibility within your organization, showcase your unique services, and demonstrate your value.
To make networking encounters impactful, express interest, actively listen, ask relevant questions, and seek areas of mutual benefit. It’s equally important to cultivate these new relationships after the initial encounter and to demonstrate how your skill set will aid colleagues in achieving their professional goals. Over time, as you establish your niche, deliberate networking with those who share similar interests can lead to a wealth of new experiences and opportunities. Intentionally mastering networking early in your career provides insight into different aspects of the hospital system, new perspectives on ideas, and access to valuable guidance from other professionals. Engaging in networking to establish your support system is an essential step towards success as a first-year hospitalist.
Direction
- Visualize your path: Find a mentor and develop a mission statement and career plan.
Once you’re familiar with your work environment, confident in your identity, and acquainted with your support network, you’re ready for the final step – direction. Hospital medicine offers many professional avenues and clarifying your career path is challenging when attempted alone. A mentor is the necessary catalyst to find direction and purpose.
Selecting and engaging with a mentor will bolster your professional advancement, academic productivity, and most importantly, career satisfaction.1 At its best, mentorship is a symbiotic relationship. Your mentor should inspire you, challenge you, and support your growth and emotional well-being. In turn, as the mentee, you should be proactive, establish expectations, and take responsibility for maintaining communication to ensure a successful relationship. As your career takes shape over time, you may require a mentorship team to fulfill your unique needs.
When you’ve established a relationship with your mentor, take time to develop 1-year and 5-year plans. Your 1-year plan should focus on a few “quick wins,” often projects or opportunities at your home institution. Small victories in your first year will boost your confidence, motivation, and sense of control. Your 5-year plan should delineate the steps necessary to make your first major career transition, such as from instructor to assistant professor. Working with your mentor to draft a career mission statement is a useful first step in this process. Beginning with the end in mind, will help you visualize your direction.2
We hope that the FIND framework will help you find your path to success as a first-year hospitalist.
Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist and instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. Dr. Ashford is assistant professor and program director, department of internal medicine/pediatrics, at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Crecelius is assistant professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis. This article is sponsored by the SHM Physicians in Training committee, which submits quarterly content to the Hospitalist on topics relevant to trainees and early -career hospitalists.
References
1. Zerzan JT et al. Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med. 2009;84:140-4. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181906e8f.
2. Covey F. The seven habits of highly effective people. 25th anniversary edition. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2013.
Congratulations! You’re about to start your first year as a hospitalist, and in many cases your first real job. Hospital medicine is an incredibly rewarding subspecialty, but the progression from resident to attending physician can be daunting. To facilitate this transition, we present FIND (Familiarity, Identity, Network, and Direction) – a novel, sequential framework for success as a first-year hospitalist. For each component, we provide a narrative overview and a summary bullet point for quick reference.
Familiarity
- Lay the foundation: Learn the ins and outs of your job, EMR, and team.
Familiarize yourself with your surroundings. Know where your patients are located, where you can document, where to find equipment for procedures, and how to reach information technology. Proactively set up the electronic medical record on your home computer and phone. Make sure to review your responsibilities, including your call schedule, your shifts, your assigned patient panel, when you can leave campus, and how people should contact you. Also, others should know your expectations of them, especially if you are working with trainees.
Maintain a file with all of your orientation materials, including phone numbers and emails of key personnel. Know who your people are – who can access your calendar, who you can call with a clinical question or to escalate care, who can assist you with billing, and who helps with the throughput of your patients in the hospital. Take time to review your benefits, including parental leave, insurance coverage, retirement planning, vacation time, and ancillary services like laundry for your white coat. Familiarizing yourself with these basics will provide comfort and lay the foundation for your first year.
Identity
- Perform self-reflection: Overcome imposter syndrome and invest in hobbies.
One of the fundamental realizations that will occur with your first hospitalist job is that you are the attending. You walk in with a vision of your first job; be prepared to be surprised. You have earned the privilege of deciding on patient plans, and you are no longer obligated to staff with a senior physician. This is both empowering and terrifying. In a way, it may oddly remind you of intern year. A new hospital, new EMR, new colleagues, and imposter syndrome will trick you into doubting your decisions.
How to battle it? Positive thinking. You do know the basics of inpatient medicine and you do have a support system to cheer you on. As part of imposter syndrome, you may feel pressured to focus solely on work. Yet, your first job as a hospitalist is finally an amazing opportunity to focus on you. What hobbies have you been neglecting: cooking, photography, reading, more time with family, a new pet? You have the power to schedule your off-weeks. Are you interested in academics? Reserve a portion of your time off to explore scholarship opportunities at your institution. Your first job as a hospitalist is a chance to develop your identity, both as a physician and as an individual.
Network
- Engage your support system: Communicate with nursing, administration, colleagues.
Networking, or building a web of mutually beneficial professional relationships, is imperative for long-term career success. Hospitalists should focus on developing their network across multiple departments, such as nursing, subspecialties, medical education, and hospital administration. Curating a broad network will increase your visibility within your organization, showcase your unique services, and demonstrate your value.
To make networking encounters impactful, express interest, actively listen, ask relevant questions, and seek areas of mutual benefit. It’s equally important to cultivate these new relationships after the initial encounter and to demonstrate how your skill set will aid colleagues in achieving their professional goals. Over time, as you establish your niche, deliberate networking with those who share similar interests can lead to a wealth of new experiences and opportunities. Intentionally mastering networking early in your career provides insight into different aspects of the hospital system, new perspectives on ideas, and access to valuable guidance from other professionals. Engaging in networking to establish your support system is an essential step towards success as a first-year hospitalist.
Direction
- Visualize your path: Find a mentor and develop a mission statement and career plan.
Once you’re familiar with your work environment, confident in your identity, and acquainted with your support network, you’re ready for the final step – direction. Hospital medicine offers many professional avenues and clarifying your career path is challenging when attempted alone. A mentor is the necessary catalyst to find direction and purpose.
Selecting and engaging with a mentor will bolster your professional advancement, academic productivity, and most importantly, career satisfaction.1 At its best, mentorship is a symbiotic relationship. Your mentor should inspire you, challenge you, and support your growth and emotional well-being. In turn, as the mentee, you should be proactive, establish expectations, and take responsibility for maintaining communication to ensure a successful relationship. As your career takes shape over time, you may require a mentorship team to fulfill your unique needs.
When you’ve established a relationship with your mentor, take time to develop 1-year and 5-year plans. Your 1-year plan should focus on a few “quick wins,” often projects or opportunities at your home institution. Small victories in your first year will boost your confidence, motivation, and sense of control. Your 5-year plan should delineate the steps necessary to make your first major career transition, such as from instructor to assistant professor. Working with your mentor to draft a career mission statement is a useful first step in this process. Beginning with the end in mind, will help you visualize your direction.2
We hope that the FIND framework will help you find your path to success as a first-year hospitalist.
Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist and instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. Dr. Ashford is assistant professor and program director, department of internal medicine/pediatrics, at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. Dr. Rawal is clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dr. Crecelius is assistant professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis. This article is sponsored by the SHM Physicians in Training committee, which submits quarterly content to the Hospitalist on topics relevant to trainees and early -career hospitalists.
References
1. Zerzan JT et al. Making the most of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med. 2009;84:140-4. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181906e8f.
2. Covey F. The seven habits of highly effective people. 25th anniversary edition. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2013.
Sotagliflozin use in T2D patients linked with posthospitalization benefits in analysis
The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.
“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.
“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.
Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.
Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
Methods and results
To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.
In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.
Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.
The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial
The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.
The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.
Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.
SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.
The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.
“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.
“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.
Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.
Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
Methods and results
To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.
In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.
Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.
The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial
The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.
The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.
Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.
SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.
The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.
“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.
“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.
Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.
Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
Methods and results
To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.
In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.
Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.
The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial
The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.
The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.
Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.
SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Hard Nodular Plaque on the Scalp
The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis
Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2).
Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.1,2
Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.1 A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.2
Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.3 Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.
The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.5 Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.
Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.6
Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.7
The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.8 Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.
- Sanmartín O, Alegre V, Martinez-Aparicio A, et al. Congenital platelike osteoma cutis: case report and review of the literature. Pediatr Dermatol. 1993;10:182-186.
- Talsania N, Jolliffe V, O’Toole EA, et al. Platelike osteoma cutis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;64:613-615.
- Yeh GL, Mathur S, Wivel A, et al. GNAS1 mutation and Cbfa1 misexpression in a child with severe congenital platelike osteoma cutis. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:2063-2073.
- Hernandez-Martin A, Perez-Mies B, Torrelo A. Congenital plate-like osteoma cutis in an infant. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009;26:479-481.
- Zaraa I, Hawilo A, Aounallah A, et al. Inflammatory tinea capitis: a 12-year study and a review of the literature. Mycoses. 2013;56:110-116.
- Scheinfeld N. Dissecting cellulitis (perifolliculitis capitis abscedens et suffodiens): a comprehensive review focusing on new treatments and findings of the last decade with commentary comparing the therapies and causes of dissecting cellulitis to hidradenitis suppurativa. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20:22692.
- Ross EK, Tan E, Shapiro J. Update on primary cicatricial alopecias. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:1-37.
- Knable AL Jr, Hanke CW, Gonin R. Prevalence of acne keloidalis nuchae in football players. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997;37:570-574.
The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis
Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2).
Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.1,2
Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.1 A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.2
Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.3 Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.
The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.5 Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.
Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.6
Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.7
The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.8 Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.
The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis
Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2).
Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.1,2
Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.1 A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.2
Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.3 Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.
The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.5 Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.
Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.6
Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.7
The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.8 Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.
- Sanmartín O, Alegre V, Martinez-Aparicio A, et al. Congenital platelike osteoma cutis: case report and review of the literature. Pediatr Dermatol. 1993;10:182-186.
- Talsania N, Jolliffe V, O’Toole EA, et al. Platelike osteoma cutis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;64:613-615.
- Yeh GL, Mathur S, Wivel A, et al. GNAS1 mutation and Cbfa1 misexpression in a child with severe congenital platelike osteoma cutis. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:2063-2073.
- Hernandez-Martin A, Perez-Mies B, Torrelo A. Congenital plate-like osteoma cutis in an infant. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009;26:479-481.
- Zaraa I, Hawilo A, Aounallah A, et al. Inflammatory tinea capitis: a 12-year study and a review of the literature. Mycoses. 2013;56:110-116.
- Scheinfeld N. Dissecting cellulitis (perifolliculitis capitis abscedens et suffodiens): a comprehensive review focusing on new treatments and findings of the last decade with commentary comparing the therapies and causes of dissecting cellulitis to hidradenitis suppurativa. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20:22692.
- Ross EK, Tan E, Shapiro J. Update on primary cicatricial alopecias. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:1-37.
- Knable AL Jr, Hanke CW, Gonin R. Prevalence of acne keloidalis nuchae in football players. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997;37:570-574.
- Sanmartín O, Alegre V, Martinez-Aparicio A, et al. Congenital platelike osteoma cutis: case report and review of the literature. Pediatr Dermatol. 1993;10:182-186.
- Talsania N, Jolliffe V, O’Toole EA, et al. Platelike osteoma cutis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;64:613-615.
- Yeh GL, Mathur S, Wivel A, et al. GNAS1 mutation and Cbfa1 misexpression in a child with severe congenital platelike osteoma cutis. J Bone Miner Res. 2000;15:2063-2073.
- Hernandez-Martin A, Perez-Mies B, Torrelo A. Congenital plate-like osteoma cutis in an infant. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009;26:479-481.
- Zaraa I, Hawilo A, Aounallah A, et al. Inflammatory tinea capitis: a 12-year study and a review of the literature. Mycoses. 2013;56:110-116.
- Scheinfeld N. Dissecting cellulitis (perifolliculitis capitis abscedens et suffodiens): a comprehensive review focusing on new treatments and findings of the last decade with commentary comparing the therapies and causes of dissecting cellulitis to hidradenitis suppurativa. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20:22692.
- Ross EK, Tan E, Shapiro J. Update on primary cicatricial alopecias. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:1-37.
- Knable AL Jr, Hanke CW, Gonin R. Prevalence of acne keloidalis nuchae in football players. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997;37:570-574.
A 35-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic with a slow-growing plaque on the scalp of 10 years’ duration. The lesion was mildly pruritic and was never associated with any pain or discharge. He denied antecedent trauma or infection. A hard, erythematous, nodular, alopecic plaque with punctate hyperkeratosis on the left posterior temporal and parietal scalp was noted on physical examination. The lesion was slightly tender to palpation.
Memory benefit seen with antihypertensives crossing blood-brain barrier
Over a 3-year period, cognitively normal older adults taking BBB-crossing antihypertensives demonstrated superior verbal memory, compared with similar individuals receiving non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, reported lead author Jean K. Ho, PhD, of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.
According to the investigators, the findings add color to a known link between hypertension and neurologic degeneration, and may aid the search for new therapeutic targets.
“Hypertension is a well-established risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, possibly through its effects on both cerebrovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ho and colleagues wrote in Hypertension. “Studies of antihypertensive treatments have reported possible salutary effects on cognition and cerebrovascular disease, as well as Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology.”
In a previous study, individuals younger than 75 years exposed to antihypertensives had an 8% decreased risk of dementia per year of use, while another trial showed that intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy reduced mild cognitive impairment by 19%.
“Despite these encouraging findings ... larger meta-analytic studies have been hampered by the fact that pharmacokinetic properties are typically not considered in existing studies or routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Ho and colleagues. “The present study sought to fill this gap [in that it was] a large and longitudinal meta-analytic study of existing data recoded to assess the effects of BBB-crossing potential in renin-angiotensin system [RAS] treatments among hypertensive adults.”
Methods and results
The meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective observational studies. The researchers assessed data on 12,849 individuals from 14 cohorts that received either BBB-crossing or non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives.
The BBB-crossing properties of RAS treatments were identified by a literature review. Of ACE inhibitors, captopril, fosinopril, lisinopril, perindopril, ramipril, and trandolapril were classified as BBB crossing, and benazepril, enalapril, moexipril, and quinapril were classified as non–BBB-crossing. Of ARBs, telmisartan and candesartan were considered BBB-crossing, and olmesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, and losartan were tagged as non–BBB-crossing.
Cognition was assessed via the following seven domains: executive function, attention, verbal memory learning, language, mental status, recall, and processing speed.
Compared with individuals taking non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, those taking BBB-crossing agents had significantly superior verbal memory (recall), with a maximum effect size of 0.07 (P = .03).
According to the investigators, this finding was particularly noteworthy, as the BBB-crossing group had relatively higher vascular risk burden and lower mean education level.
“These differences make it all the more remarkable that the BBB-crossing group displayed better memory ability over time despite these cognitive disadvantages,” the investigators wrote.
Still, not all the findings favored BBB-crossing agents. Individuals in the BBB-crossing group had relatively inferior attention ability, with a minimum effect size of –0.17 (P = .02).
The other cognitive measures were not significantly different between groups.
Clinicians may consider findings after accounting for other factors
Principal investigator Daniel A. Nation, PhD, associate professor of psychological science and a faculty member of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, suggested that the small difference in verbal memory between groups could be clinically significant over a longer period of time.
“Although the overall effect size was pretty small, if you look at how long it would take for someone [with dementia] to progress over many years of decline, it would actually end up being a pretty big effect,” Dr. Nation said in an interview. “Small effect sizes could actually end up preventing a lot of cases of dementia,” he added.
The conflicting results in the BBB-crossing group – better verbal memory but worse attention ability – were “surprising,” he noted.
“I sort of didn’t believe it at first,” Dr. Nation said, “because the memory finding is sort of replication – we’d observed the same exact effect on memory in a smaller sample in another study. ... The attention [finding], going another way, was a new thing.”
Dr. Nation suggested that the intergroup differences in attention ability may stem from idiosyncrasies of the tests used to measure that domain, which can be impacted by cardiovascular or brain vascular disease. Or it could be caused by something else entirely, he said, noting that further investigation is needed.
He added that the improvements in verbal memory within the BBB-crossing group could be caused by direct effects on the brain. He pointed out that certain ACE polymorphisms have been linked with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and those same polymorphisms, in animal models, lead to neurodegeneration, with reversal possible through administration of ACE inhibitors.
“It could be that what we’re observing has nothing really to do with blood pressure,” Dr. Nation explained. “This could be a neuronal effect on learning memory systems.”
He went on to suggest that clinicians may consider these findings when selecting antihypertensive agents for their patients, with the caveat that all other prescribing factors have already been taking to account.
“In the event that you’re going to give an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker anyway, and it ends up being a somewhat arbitrary decision in terms of which specific drug you’re going to give, then perhaps this is a piece of information you would take into account – that one gets in the brain and one doesn’t – in somebody at risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. Nation said.
Exact mechanisms of action unknown
Hélène Girouard, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology at the University of Montreal, said in an interview that the findings are “of considerable importance, knowing that brain alterations could begin as much as 30 years before manifestation of dementia.”
Since 2003, Dr. Girouard has been studying the cognitive effects of antihypertensive medications. She noted that previous studies involving rodents “have shown beneficial effects [of BBB-crossing antihypertensive drugs] on cognition independent of their effects on blood pressure.”
The drugs’ exact mechanisms of action, however, remain elusive, according to Dr. Girouard, who offered several possible explanations, including amelioration of BBB disruption, brain inflammation, cerebral blood flow dysregulation, cholinergic dysfunction, and neurologic deficits. “Whether these mechanisms may explain Ho and colleagues’ observations remains to be established,” she added.
Andrea L. Schneider, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, applauded the study, but ultimately suggested that more research is needed to impact clinical decision-making.
“The results of this important and well-done study suggest that further investigation into targeted mechanism-based approaches to selecting hypertension treatment agents, with a specific focus on cognitive outcomes, is warranted,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview. “Before changing clinical practice, further work is necessary to disentangle contributions of medication mechanism, comorbid vascular risk factors, and achieved blood pressure reduction, among others.”
The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Waksman Foundation of Japan, and others. The interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Over a 3-year period, cognitively normal older adults taking BBB-crossing antihypertensives demonstrated superior verbal memory, compared with similar individuals receiving non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, reported lead author Jean K. Ho, PhD, of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.
According to the investigators, the findings add color to a known link between hypertension and neurologic degeneration, and may aid the search for new therapeutic targets.
“Hypertension is a well-established risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, possibly through its effects on both cerebrovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ho and colleagues wrote in Hypertension. “Studies of antihypertensive treatments have reported possible salutary effects on cognition and cerebrovascular disease, as well as Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology.”
In a previous study, individuals younger than 75 years exposed to antihypertensives had an 8% decreased risk of dementia per year of use, while another trial showed that intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy reduced mild cognitive impairment by 19%.
“Despite these encouraging findings ... larger meta-analytic studies have been hampered by the fact that pharmacokinetic properties are typically not considered in existing studies or routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Ho and colleagues. “The present study sought to fill this gap [in that it was] a large and longitudinal meta-analytic study of existing data recoded to assess the effects of BBB-crossing potential in renin-angiotensin system [RAS] treatments among hypertensive adults.”
Methods and results
The meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective observational studies. The researchers assessed data on 12,849 individuals from 14 cohorts that received either BBB-crossing or non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives.
The BBB-crossing properties of RAS treatments were identified by a literature review. Of ACE inhibitors, captopril, fosinopril, lisinopril, perindopril, ramipril, and trandolapril were classified as BBB crossing, and benazepril, enalapril, moexipril, and quinapril were classified as non–BBB-crossing. Of ARBs, telmisartan and candesartan were considered BBB-crossing, and olmesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, and losartan were tagged as non–BBB-crossing.
Cognition was assessed via the following seven domains: executive function, attention, verbal memory learning, language, mental status, recall, and processing speed.
Compared with individuals taking non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, those taking BBB-crossing agents had significantly superior verbal memory (recall), with a maximum effect size of 0.07 (P = .03).
According to the investigators, this finding was particularly noteworthy, as the BBB-crossing group had relatively higher vascular risk burden and lower mean education level.
“These differences make it all the more remarkable that the BBB-crossing group displayed better memory ability over time despite these cognitive disadvantages,” the investigators wrote.
Still, not all the findings favored BBB-crossing agents. Individuals in the BBB-crossing group had relatively inferior attention ability, with a minimum effect size of –0.17 (P = .02).
The other cognitive measures were not significantly different between groups.
Clinicians may consider findings after accounting for other factors
Principal investigator Daniel A. Nation, PhD, associate professor of psychological science and a faculty member of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, suggested that the small difference in verbal memory between groups could be clinically significant over a longer period of time.
“Although the overall effect size was pretty small, if you look at how long it would take for someone [with dementia] to progress over many years of decline, it would actually end up being a pretty big effect,” Dr. Nation said in an interview. “Small effect sizes could actually end up preventing a lot of cases of dementia,” he added.
The conflicting results in the BBB-crossing group – better verbal memory but worse attention ability – were “surprising,” he noted.
“I sort of didn’t believe it at first,” Dr. Nation said, “because the memory finding is sort of replication – we’d observed the same exact effect on memory in a smaller sample in another study. ... The attention [finding], going another way, was a new thing.”
Dr. Nation suggested that the intergroup differences in attention ability may stem from idiosyncrasies of the tests used to measure that domain, which can be impacted by cardiovascular or brain vascular disease. Or it could be caused by something else entirely, he said, noting that further investigation is needed.
He added that the improvements in verbal memory within the BBB-crossing group could be caused by direct effects on the brain. He pointed out that certain ACE polymorphisms have been linked with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and those same polymorphisms, in animal models, lead to neurodegeneration, with reversal possible through administration of ACE inhibitors.
“It could be that what we’re observing has nothing really to do with blood pressure,” Dr. Nation explained. “This could be a neuronal effect on learning memory systems.”
He went on to suggest that clinicians may consider these findings when selecting antihypertensive agents for their patients, with the caveat that all other prescribing factors have already been taking to account.
“In the event that you’re going to give an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker anyway, and it ends up being a somewhat arbitrary decision in terms of which specific drug you’re going to give, then perhaps this is a piece of information you would take into account – that one gets in the brain and one doesn’t – in somebody at risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. Nation said.
Exact mechanisms of action unknown
Hélène Girouard, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology at the University of Montreal, said in an interview that the findings are “of considerable importance, knowing that brain alterations could begin as much as 30 years before manifestation of dementia.”
Since 2003, Dr. Girouard has been studying the cognitive effects of antihypertensive medications. She noted that previous studies involving rodents “have shown beneficial effects [of BBB-crossing antihypertensive drugs] on cognition independent of their effects on blood pressure.”
The drugs’ exact mechanisms of action, however, remain elusive, according to Dr. Girouard, who offered several possible explanations, including amelioration of BBB disruption, brain inflammation, cerebral blood flow dysregulation, cholinergic dysfunction, and neurologic deficits. “Whether these mechanisms may explain Ho and colleagues’ observations remains to be established,” she added.
Andrea L. Schneider, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, applauded the study, but ultimately suggested that more research is needed to impact clinical decision-making.
“The results of this important and well-done study suggest that further investigation into targeted mechanism-based approaches to selecting hypertension treatment agents, with a specific focus on cognitive outcomes, is warranted,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview. “Before changing clinical practice, further work is necessary to disentangle contributions of medication mechanism, comorbid vascular risk factors, and achieved blood pressure reduction, among others.”
The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Waksman Foundation of Japan, and others. The interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Over a 3-year period, cognitively normal older adults taking BBB-crossing antihypertensives demonstrated superior verbal memory, compared with similar individuals receiving non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, reported lead author Jean K. Ho, PhD, of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues.
According to the investigators, the findings add color to a known link between hypertension and neurologic degeneration, and may aid the search for new therapeutic targets.
“Hypertension is a well-established risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, possibly through its effects on both cerebrovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ho and colleagues wrote in Hypertension. “Studies of antihypertensive treatments have reported possible salutary effects on cognition and cerebrovascular disease, as well as Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology.”
In a previous study, individuals younger than 75 years exposed to antihypertensives had an 8% decreased risk of dementia per year of use, while another trial showed that intensive blood pressure–lowering therapy reduced mild cognitive impairment by 19%.
“Despite these encouraging findings ... larger meta-analytic studies have been hampered by the fact that pharmacokinetic properties are typically not considered in existing studies or routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Ho and colleagues. “The present study sought to fill this gap [in that it was] a large and longitudinal meta-analytic study of existing data recoded to assess the effects of BBB-crossing potential in renin-angiotensin system [RAS] treatments among hypertensive adults.”
Methods and results
The meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective observational studies. The researchers assessed data on 12,849 individuals from 14 cohorts that received either BBB-crossing or non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives.
The BBB-crossing properties of RAS treatments were identified by a literature review. Of ACE inhibitors, captopril, fosinopril, lisinopril, perindopril, ramipril, and trandolapril were classified as BBB crossing, and benazepril, enalapril, moexipril, and quinapril were classified as non–BBB-crossing. Of ARBs, telmisartan and candesartan were considered BBB-crossing, and olmesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, and losartan were tagged as non–BBB-crossing.
Cognition was assessed via the following seven domains: executive function, attention, verbal memory learning, language, mental status, recall, and processing speed.
Compared with individuals taking non–BBB-crossing antihypertensives, those taking BBB-crossing agents had significantly superior verbal memory (recall), with a maximum effect size of 0.07 (P = .03).
According to the investigators, this finding was particularly noteworthy, as the BBB-crossing group had relatively higher vascular risk burden and lower mean education level.
“These differences make it all the more remarkable that the BBB-crossing group displayed better memory ability over time despite these cognitive disadvantages,” the investigators wrote.
Still, not all the findings favored BBB-crossing agents. Individuals in the BBB-crossing group had relatively inferior attention ability, with a minimum effect size of –0.17 (P = .02).
The other cognitive measures were not significantly different between groups.
Clinicians may consider findings after accounting for other factors
Principal investigator Daniel A. Nation, PhD, associate professor of psychological science and a faculty member of the Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders at the University of California, Irvine, suggested that the small difference in verbal memory between groups could be clinically significant over a longer period of time.
“Although the overall effect size was pretty small, if you look at how long it would take for someone [with dementia] to progress over many years of decline, it would actually end up being a pretty big effect,” Dr. Nation said in an interview. “Small effect sizes could actually end up preventing a lot of cases of dementia,” he added.
The conflicting results in the BBB-crossing group – better verbal memory but worse attention ability – were “surprising,” he noted.
“I sort of didn’t believe it at first,” Dr. Nation said, “because the memory finding is sort of replication – we’d observed the same exact effect on memory in a smaller sample in another study. ... The attention [finding], going another way, was a new thing.”
Dr. Nation suggested that the intergroup differences in attention ability may stem from idiosyncrasies of the tests used to measure that domain, which can be impacted by cardiovascular or brain vascular disease. Or it could be caused by something else entirely, he said, noting that further investigation is needed.
He added that the improvements in verbal memory within the BBB-crossing group could be caused by direct effects on the brain. He pointed out that certain ACE polymorphisms have been linked with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and those same polymorphisms, in animal models, lead to neurodegeneration, with reversal possible through administration of ACE inhibitors.
“It could be that what we’re observing has nothing really to do with blood pressure,” Dr. Nation explained. “This could be a neuronal effect on learning memory systems.”
He went on to suggest that clinicians may consider these findings when selecting antihypertensive agents for their patients, with the caveat that all other prescribing factors have already been taking to account.
“In the event that you’re going to give an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker anyway, and it ends up being a somewhat arbitrary decision in terms of which specific drug you’re going to give, then perhaps this is a piece of information you would take into account – that one gets in the brain and one doesn’t – in somebody at risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. Nation said.
Exact mechanisms of action unknown
Hélène Girouard, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology and physiology at the University of Montreal, said in an interview that the findings are “of considerable importance, knowing that brain alterations could begin as much as 30 years before manifestation of dementia.”
Since 2003, Dr. Girouard has been studying the cognitive effects of antihypertensive medications. She noted that previous studies involving rodents “have shown beneficial effects [of BBB-crossing antihypertensive drugs] on cognition independent of their effects on blood pressure.”
The drugs’ exact mechanisms of action, however, remain elusive, according to Dr. Girouard, who offered several possible explanations, including amelioration of BBB disruption, brain inflammation, cerebral blood flow dysregulation, cholinergic dysfunction, and neurologic deficits. “Whether these mechanisms may explain Ho and colleagues’ observations remains to be established,” she added.
Andrea L. Schneider, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, applauded the study, but ultimately suggested that more research is needed to impact clinical decision-making.
“The results of this important and well-done study suggest that further investigation into targeted mechanism-based approaches to selecting hypertension treatment agents, with a specific focus on cognitive outcomes, is warranted,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview. “Before changing clinical practice, further work is necessary to disentangle contributions of medication mechanism, comorbid vascular risk factors, and achieved blood pressure reduction, among others.”
The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, the Alzheimer’s Association, the Waksman Foundation of Japan, and others. The interviewees reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM HYPERTENSION
Reflections on 10 years of hospitalist productivity
Successful programs will recruit lifelong learners
The workload of individual hospitalists has long been a hot-button issue. In a 2013 survey of hospitalists, 40% felt workloads were unsafe on a monthly basis, and 22% reported ordering unnecessary testing or procedures because of time pressure.1 In a 2014 analysis of over 20,000 admissions to an academic hospital medicine service, increasing workload led to increased length of stay and cost per case.2 Although these studies suggest a “sweet spot” for hospitalist workload, many groups face constant pressure to increase revenue.
Over the past decade there has been a significant change in how hospital medicine programs are financed. In the 2010 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM), the median financial support per physician hospitalist in adult hospital medicine groups (HMGs) was $98,253. By the 2020 SoHM, the financial support was $198,750, an increase of $100,497 in just 10 years. When this is combined with the explosive growth in the number of hospitalists, there is one inescapable conclusion – hospital medicine is expensive.
Over this same 10 years, net collections per hospitalist grew from $194,440 in 2010 to $216,779 in 2020, an increase of $22,339. The increase was caused by higher collections per encounter, not more encounters. Additionally, median compensation for adult/internal medicine hospitalists increased over the same period from $215,000 to $307,336, an increase of $92,336, or 43%. That is an increase of 3.7% per year, more than twice the rate of inflation or wage growth in the general economy over the same period. About 75% of this increase was funded by hospital support. It is clear – health care systems continue to find value in investing in hospitalists and hospital medicine programs.
With mounting costs for hospitals, there is pressure for the hospitalist model of care to change or for yearly billable encounters per hospitalist full-time equivalent to increase. Yet, the productivity of hospitalists, as measured by median billable encounters per year has remained flat. The 2010 SoHM listed median number of billable encounters per year for an internal medicine hospitalist as 2,230. In 2020, the number is 2,246 – a trivial 0.7% increase per decade, what amounts to a rounding error. There has been wiggle up and down over the years, but I suspect these are not trends but noise.
So the question is why. I think it is partly because hospital medicine leaders together with the leaders of their health care systems seem to be reaching an equilibrium. Productivity will always remain an expectation. This expectation will vary based on local circumstances. But for many HMGs, the days when productivity is pushed as the primary objective seem to be disappearing. Most hospital leaders seem to now understand that high productivity can be detrimental to other program goals.
But if productivity is flat, do 40% of hospitalists still feel they are providing unsafe care on a monthly basis? Without another study we don’t know, but here are some reasons why I’m hopeful. First, the hospitalist workforce is more experienced than 10 years ago and may be more efficient. Second, hospital medicine groups are larger and are therefore enabled to schedule more flexibly or enact jeopardy systems to level out workload on busy days. And lastly, hospitalists who feel they are providing unsafe care find greener pastures. The 2010 SoHM reported adult hospital medicine programs had a median 14.3% turnover rate. The 2020 SoHM turnover was 10.9%. While this is up from 2018 (7.4%) and 2016 (6.9%), the general trend is down.
Additionally, we all need to consider the possibility that there will be a disruptive innovation that will allow greater productivity for individual hospitalists while maintaining value. It is apparent the EHR is not yet that breakthrough. We all need to keep our eyes open, stay flexible, and be prepared to meet evolving demands on our programs.
We will see constant demands on hospitalists. But I’m hopeful that going forward expectations will increasingly shift away from simply working harder and seeing more patients, toward goals related to improving performance. Training programs generally produce excellent clinicians, but they often do not equip physicians to be excellent hospitalists. Successful hospital medicine programs will recruit lifelong learners and career hospitalists who are flexible and willing to innovate and adapt. The best programs will have structures in place to help excellent clinicians mature into the role of excellent hospitalists, and leaders that create and foster an environment of excellence.
Discover more 2020 SoHM Report data at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.
Dr. Frederickson is medical director, hospital medicine and palliative care, at CHI Health, Omaha, Neb., and assistant professor at Creighton University, Omaha.
References
1. Michtalik HJ et al. Impact of Attending Physician Workload on Patient Care: A Survey of Hospitalists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):375-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1864.
2. Elliott DJ et al. Effect of Hospitalist Workload on the Quality and Efficiency of Care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):786-93. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.300.
Successful programs will recruit lifelong learners
Successful programs will recruit lifelong learners
The workload of individual hospitalists has long been a hot-button issue. In a 2013 survey of hospitalists, 40% felt workloads were unsafe on a monthly basis, and 22% reported ordering unnecessary testing or procedures because of time pressure.1 In a 2014 analysis of over 20,000 admissions to an academic hospital medicine service, increasing workload led to increased length of stay and cost per case.2 Although these studies suggest a “sweet spot” for hospitalist workload, many groups face constant pressure to increase revenue.
Over the past decade there has been a significant change in how hospital medicine programs are financed. In the 2010 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM), the median financial support per physician hospitalist in adult hospital medicine groups (HMGs) was $98,253. By the 2020 SoHM, the financial support was $198,750, an increase of $100,497 in just 10 years. When this is combined with the explosive growth in the number of hospitalists, there is one inescapable conclusion – hospital medicine is expensive.
Over this same 10 years, net collections per hospitalist grew from $194,440 in 2010 to $216,779 in 2020, an increase of $22,339. The increase was caused by higher collections per encounter, not more encounters. Additionally, median compensation for adult/internal medicine hospitalists increased over the same period from $215,000 to $307,336, an increase of $92,336, or 43%. That is an increase of 3.7% per year, more than twice the rate of inflation or wage growth in the general economy over the same period. About 75% of this increase was funded by hospital support. It is clear – health care systems continue to find value in investing in hospitalists and hospital medicine programs.
With mounting costs for hospitals, there is pressure for the hospitalist model of care to change or for yearly billable encounters per hospitalist full-time equivalent to increase. Yet, the productivity of hospitalists, as measured by median billable encounters per year has remained flat. The 2010 SoHM listed median number of billable encounters per year for an internal medicine hospitalist as 2,230. In 2020, the number is 2,246 – a trivial 0.7% increase per decade, what amounts to a rounding error. There has been wiggle up and down over the years, but I suspect these are not trends but noise.
So the question is why. I think it is partly because hospital medicine leaders together with the leaders of their health care systems seem to be reaching an equilibrium. Productivity will always remain an expectation. This expectation will vary based on local circumstances. But for many HMGs, the days when productivity is pushed as the primary objective seem to be disappearing. Most hospital leaders seem to now understand that high productivity can be detrimental to other program goals.
But if productivity is flat, do 40% of hospitalists still feel they are providing unsafe care on a monthly basis? Without another study we don’t know, but here are some reasons why I’m hopeful. First, the hospitalist workforce is more experienced than 10 years ago and may be more efficient. Second, hospital medicine groups are larger and are therefore enabled to schedule more flexibly or enact jeopardy systems to level out workload on busy days. And lastly, hospitalists who feel they are providing unsafe care find greener pastures. The 2010 SoHM reported adult hospital medicine programs had a median 14.3% turnover rate. The 2020 SoHM turnover was 10.9%. While this is up from 2018 (7.4%) and 2016 (6.9%), the general trend is down.
Additionally, we all need to consider the possibility that there will be a disruptive innovation that will allow greater productivity for individual hospitalists while maintaining value. It is apparent the EHR is not yet that breakthrough. We all need to keep our eyes open, stay flexible, and be prepared to meet evolving demands on our programs.
We will see constant demands on hospitalists. But I’m hopeful that going forward expectations will increasingly shift away from simply working harder and seeing more patients, toward goals related to improving performance. Training programs generally produce excellent clinicians, but they often do not equip physicians to be excellent hospitalists. Successful hospital medicine programs will recruit lifelong learners and career hospitalists who are flexible and willing to innovate and adapt. The best programs will have structures in place to help excellent clinicians mature into the role of excellent hospitalists, and leaders that create and foster an environment of excellence.
Discover more 2020 SoHM Report data at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.
Dr. Frederickson is medical director, hospital medicine and palliative care, at CHI Health, Omaha, Neb., and assistant professor at Creighton University, Omaha.
References
1. Michtalik HJ et al. Impact of Attending Physician Workload on Patient Care: A Survey of Hospitalists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):375-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1864.
2. Elliott DJ et al. Effect of Hospitalist Workload on the Quality and Efficiency of Care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):786-93. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.300.
The workload of individual hospitalists has long been a hot-button issue. In a 2013 survey of hospitalists, 40% felt workloads were unsafe on a monthly basis, and 22% reported ordering unnecessary testing or procedures because of time pressure.1 In a 2014 analysis of over 20,000 admissions to an academic hospital medicine service, increasing workload led to increased length of stay and cost per case.2 Although these studies suggest a “sweet spot” for hospitalist workload, many groups face constant pressure to increase revenue.
Over the past decade there has been a significant change in how hospital medicine programs are financed. In the 2010 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM), the median financial support per physician hospitalist in adult hospital medicine groups (HMGs) was $98,253. By the 2020 SoHM, the financial support was $198,750, an increase of $100,497 in just 10 years. When this is combined with the explosive growth in the number of hospitalists, there is one inescapable conclusion – hospital medicine is expensive.
Over this same 10 years, net collections per hospitalist grew from $194,440 in 2010 to $216,779 in 2020, an increase of $22,339. The increase was caused by higher collections per encounter, not more encounters. Additionally, median compensation for adult/internal medicine hospitalists increased over the same period from $215,000 to $307,336, an increase of $92,336, or 43%. That is an increase of 3.7% per year, more than twice the rate of inflation or wage growth in the general economy over the same period. About 75% of this increase was funded by hospital support. It is clear – health care systems continue to find value in investing in hospitalists and hospital medicine programs.
With mounting costs for hospitals, there is pressure for the hospitalist model of care to change or for yearly billable encounters per hospitalist full-time equivalent to increase. Yet, the productivity of hospitalists, as measured by median billable encounters per year has remained flat. The 2010 SoHM listed median number of billable encounters per year for an internal medicine hospitalist as 2,230. In 2020, the number is 2,246 – a trivial 0.7% increase per decade, what amounts to a rounding error. There has been wiggle up and down over the years, but I suspect these are not trends but noise.
So the question is why. I think it is partly because hospital medicine leaders together with the leaders of their health care systems seem to be reaching an equilibrium. Productivity will always remain an expectation. This expectation will vary based on local circumstances. But for many HMGs, the days when productivity is pushed as the primary objective seem to be disappearing. Most hospital leaders seem to now understand that high productivity can be detrimental to other program goals.
But if productivity is flat, do 40% of hospitalists still feel they are providing unsafe care on a monthly basis? Without another study we don’t know, but here are some reasons why I’m hopeful. First, the hospitalist workforce is more experienced than 10 years ago and may be more efficient. Second, hospital medicine groups are larger and are therefore enabled to schedule more flexibly or enact jeopardy systems to level out workload on busy days. And lastly, hospitalists who feel they are providing unsafe care find greener pastures. The 2010 SoHM reported adult hospital medicine programs had a median 14.3% turnover rate. The 2020 SoHM turnover was 10.9%. While this is up from 2018 (7.4%) and 2016 (6.9%), the general trend is down.
Additionally, we all need to consider the possibility that there will be a disruptive innovation that will allow greater productivity for individual hospitalists while maintaining value. It is apparent the EHR is not yet that breakthrough. We all need to keep our eyes open, stay flexible, and be prepared to meet evolving demands on our programs.
We will see constant demands on hospitalists. But I’m hopeful that going forward expectations will increasingly shift away from simply working harder and seeing more patients, toward goals related to improving performance. Training programs generally produce excellent clinicians, but they often do not equip physicians to be excellent hospitalists. Successful hospital medicine programs will recruit lifelong learners and career hospitalists who are flexible and willing to innovate and adapt. The best programs will have structures in place to help excellent clinicians mature into the role of excellent hospitalists, and leaders that create and foster an environment of excellence.
Discover more 2020 SoHM Report data at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.
Dr. Frederickson is medical director, hospital medicine and palliative care, at CHI Health, Omaha, Neb., and assistant professor at Creighton University, Omaha.
References
1. Michtalik HJ et al. Impact of Attending Physician Workload on Patient Care: A Survey of Hospitalists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(5):375-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1864.
2. Elliott DJ et al. Effect of Hospitalist Workload on the Quality and Efficiency of Care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):786-93. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.300.
Lessons from COVID-19 and planning for a postpandemic screening surge
It is not an exaggeration to say that everything in my gastroenterology practice changed in response to COVID-19.
Due to the overwhelming surge that Massachusetts saw in the early days of the pandemic, the Department of Public Health issued a moratorium on elective procedures in mid-March of 2020, for both hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. The moratorium included colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings and other procedures that make up a significant portion of the services we provide to our community. Greater Boston Gastroenterology treats patients in and around the area of Framingham, Mass. – not too far outside of Boston. In our practice, we have seven physicians and three nurse practitioners, with one main office and two satellite offices. By national standards, our practice would be considered small, but it is on the larger side of independent GI physician practices in the commonwealth.
Nationally, moratoria on elective procedures led to one of the steepest drop-offs in screenings for cancers, including colorectal cancer. In late summer of 2020, it was estimated that CRC screenings dropped by 86 percent. Two-thirds of independent GI practices saw a significant decline in patient volume, and many believe that they may not get it back.
However, I’m an optimist in this situation, and I believe that as life gets more normal, people will get back to screenings. With the recommendation by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that CRC screening should begin at age 45, I expect that there will be an additional increase in screening soon.
Pivoting and developing a reopening plan
Almost immediately after the Department of Public Health issued the moratorium, Greater Boston Gastroenterology began putting together a reopening plan that would allow us to continue treating some patients and prepare for a surge once restrictions were lifted.
Part of our plan was to stay informed by talking with other practices about what they were doing and to stay abreast of policy changes at the local, state, and federal levels.
We also needed to keep our patients informed to alleviate safety concerns. Just prior to our reopening, we developed videos of the precautions that we were taking in all our facilities to assure our patients that we were doing everything possible to keep them safe. We also put information on our website through every stage of reopening so patients could know what to expect at their visits.
Helping our staff feel safe as they returned to work was also an important focus of our reopening plan. We prepared for our eventual reopening by installing safety measures such as plexiglass barriers and HEPA filter machines for our common areas and exam rooms. We also procured access to rapid turnaround polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing that allowed us to regularly test all patients seeking elective procedures. Additionally, we invested in point-of-care antigen tests for the office, and we regularly test all our patient-facing staff.
We had corralled enough personal protective equipment to keep our office infusion services operating with our nurses and patients feeling safe. The preparation allowed us to resume in-person visits almost immediately after the Department of Public Health allowed us to reopen.
Once we reopened, we concentrated on in-office visits for patients who were under 65 and at lower risk for COVID-19, while focusing our telemedicine efforts on patients who were older and at higher risk. We’re now back to seeing all patients who want to have in-office visits and are actually above par for our visits. The number of procedures we have performed in the last 3 months is similar to the 3 months before the pandemic.
During the pandemic, Massachusetts had the best conversion to telehealth in the nation, and it worked well for patients and providers. The key was to use several telehealth apps, as using only one may not work for everyone. Having several options made it likely that we would be able to do complete visits and connect with patients. When we needed to, we switched to telephone visits.
All the physicians and staff in our practice are telemedicine enthusiasts, and it will remain a significant part of our practices as long as Medicare, the state health plans, and commercial payers remain supportive.
Planning for a surge in screenings
There may be a surge in screenings once more people are vaccinated and comfortable getting back into the office, and we’re planning for this as well. We’ve recruited new physicians and have expanded our available hours for procedures at our ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Surprisingly, we have found that there is a lot of interest from physicians for weekend shifts at the ASC, and we now have a physician waiting list for Saturday procedure time.
With the new lower age for recommended screening, there will be a lag with primary care physicians referring their younger patients. This may provide some time to prepare for an increase in screenings resulting from this new policy.
Another strategy that has worked well for us is to train and develop our advanced practitioners into nonphysician experts in GI and liver disease. Greater Boston Gastroenterology has used this strategy since its founding, and we think our most experienced nurse practitioners could rival any office-based gastroenterologist in their acumen and capabilities.
Over the last 3 years we have transitioned our nonphysician practitioners into the inpatient setting. As a result, consults are completed earlier in the day, and we are better able to help coordinate inpatient procedure scheduling, discharge planning, and outpatient follow-up.
The time we spend on training is worth it. It improves customer service, allows us to book appointments with shorter notice, and overall has a positive effect on our bottom line. Utilizing our advanced providers in this capacity will help us manage any volume increases we see in the near future. In addition, most patients in our community are used to seeing advanced providers in their physician’s office, so the acceptance among our patients is high.
Being flexible and favoring strategic planning
Overall, I think the greatest thing we learned during the pandemic is that we need to be flexible. It was a helpful reminder that, in medicine, things are constantly changing. I remember when passing the GI boards seemed like my final step, but everyone comes to realize it is just the first step in the journey.
As an early-career physician, you should remember the hard work that helped you get to medical school, land a good residency, stand out to get a fellowship, and master your specialty. Harness that personal drive and energy and keep moving forward. Remember that your first job is unlikely to be your last. Try not to see your choices as either/or – either academic or private practice, hospital-employed or self-employed. The boundaries are blurring. We have long careers and face myriad opportunities for professional advancement.
Be patient. Some goals take time to achieve. At each stage be prepared to work hard, use your time wisely, and try not to lose sight of maximizing your professional happiness.
Dr. Dickstein is a practicing gastroenterologist at Greater Boston Gastroenterology in Framingham, Mass., and serves on the executive committee of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. He has no conflicts to declare.
It is not an exaggeration to say that everything in my gastroenterology practice changed in response to COVID-19.
Due to the overwhelming surge that Massachusetts saw in the early days of the pandemic, the Department of Public Health issued a moratorium on elective procedures in mid-March of 2020, for both hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. The moratorium included colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings and other procedures that make up a significant portion of the services we provide to our community. Greater Boston Gastroenterology treats patients in and around the area of Framingham, Mass. – not too far outside of Boston. In our practice, we have seven physicians and three nurse practitioners, with one main office and two satellite offices. By national standards, our practice would be considered small, but it is on the larger side of independent GI physician practices in the commonwealth.
Nationally, moratoria on elective procedures led to one of the steepest drop-offs in screenings for cancers, including colorectal cancer. In late summer of 2020, it was estimated that CRC screenings dropped by 86 percent. Two-thirds of independent GI practices saw a significant decline in patient volume, and many believe that they may not get it back.
However, I’m an optimist in this situation, and I believe that as life gets more normal, people will get back to screenings. With the recommendation by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that CRC screening should begin at age 45, I expect that there will be an additional increase in screening soon.
Pivoting and developing a reopening plan
Almost immediately after the Department of Public Health issued the moratorium, Greater Boston Gastroenterology began putting together a reopening plan that would allow us to continue treating some patients and prepare for a surge once restrictions were lifted.
Part of our plan was to stay informed by talking with other practices about what they were doing and to stay abreast of policy changes at the local, state, and federal levels.
We also needed to keep our patients informed to alleviate safety concerns. Just prior to our reopening, we developed videos of the precautions that we were taking in all our facilities to assure our patients that we were doing everything possible to keep them safe. We also put information on our website through every stage of reopening so patients could know what to expect at their visits.
Helping our staff feel safe as they returned to work was also an important focus of our reopening plan. We prepared for our eventual reopening by installing safety measures such as plexiglass barriers and HEPA filter machines for our common areas and exam rooms. We also procured access to rapid turnaround polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing that allowed us to regularly test all patients seeking elective procedures. Additionally, we invested in point-of-care antigen tests for the office, and we regularly test all our patient-facing staff.
We had corralled enough personal protective equipment to keep our office infusion services operating with our nurses and patients feeling safe. The preparation allowed us to resume in-person visits almost immediately after the Department of Public Health allowed us to reopen.
Once we reopened, we concentrated on in-office visits for patients who were under 65 and at lower risk for COVID-19, while focusing our telemedicine efforts on patients who were older and at higher risk. We’re now back to seeing all patients who want to have in-office visits and are actually above par for our visits. The number of procedures we have performed in the last 3 months is similar to the 3 months before the pandemic.
During the pandemic, Massachusetts had the best conversion to telehealth in the nation, and it worked well for patients and providers. The key was to use several telehealth apps, as using only one may not work for everyone. Having several options made it likely that we would be able to do complete visits and connect with patients. When we needed to, we switched to telephone visits.
All the physicians and staff in our practice are telemedicine enthusiasts, and it will remain a significant part of our practices as long as Medicare, the state health plans, and commercial payers remain supportive.
Planning for a surge in screenings
There may be a surge in screenings once more people are vaccinated and comfortable getting back into the office, and we’re planning for this as well. We’ve recruited new physicians and have expanded our available hours for procedures at our ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Surprisingly, we have found that there is a lot of interest from physicians for weekend shifts at the ASC, and we now have a physician waiting list for Saturday procedure time.
With the new lower age for recommended screening, there will be a lag with primary care physicians referring their younger patients. This may provide some time to prepare for an increase in screenings resulting from this new policy.
Another strategy that has worked well for us is to train and develop our advanced practitioners into nonphysician experts in GI and liver disease. Greater Boston Gastroenterology has used this strategy since its founding, and we think our most experienced nurse practitioners could rival any office-based gastroenterologist in their acumen and capabilities.
Over the last 3 years we have transitioned our nonphysician practitioners into the inpatient setting. As a result, consults are completed earlier in the day, and we are better able to help coordinate inpatient procedure scheduling, discharge planning, and outpatient follow-up.
The time we spend on training is worth it. It improves customer service, allows us to book appointments with shorter notice, and overall has a positive effect on our bottom line. Utilizing our advanced providers in this capacity will help us manage any volume increases we see in the near future. In addition, most patients in our community are used to seeing advanced providers in their physician’s office, so the acceptance among our patients is high.
Being flexible and favoring strategic planning
Overall, I think the greatest thing we learned during the pandemic is that we need to be flexible. It was a helpful reminder that, in medicine, things are constantly changing. I remember when passing the GI boards seemed like my final step, but everyone comes to realize it is just the first step in the journey.
As an early-career physician, you should remember the hard work that helped you get to medical school, land a good residency, stand out to get a fellowship, and master your specialty. Harness that personal drive and energy and keep moving forward. Remember that your first job is unlikely to be your last. Try not to see your choices as either/or – either academic or private practice, hospital-employed or self-employed. The boundaries are blurring. We have long careers and face myriad opportunities for professional advancement.
Be patient. Some goals take time to achieve. At each stage be prepared to work hard, use your time wisely, and try not to lose sight of maximizing your professional happiness.
Dr. Dickstein is a practicing gastroenterologist at Greater Boston Gastroenterology in Framingham, Mass., and serves on the executive committee of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. He has no conflicts to declare.
It is not an exaggeration to say that everything in my gastroenterology practice changed in response to COVID-19.
Due to the overwhelming surge that Massachusetts saw in the early days of the pandemic, the Department of Public Health issued a moratorium on elective procedures in mid-March of 2020, for both hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. The moratorium included colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings and other procedures that make up a significant portion of the services we provide to our community. Greater Boston Gastroenterology treats patients in and around the area of Framingham, Mass. – not too far outside of Boston. In our practice, we have seven physicians and three nurse practitioners, with one main office and two satellite offices. By national standards, our practice would be considered small, but it is on the larger side of independent GI physician practices in the commonwealth.
Nationally, moratoria on elective procedures led to one of the steepest drop-offs in screenings for cancers, including colorectal cancer. In late summer of 2020, it was estimated that CRC screenings dropped by 86 percent. Two-thirds of independent GI practices saw a significant decline in patient volume, and many believe that they may not get it back.
However, I’m an optimist in this situation, and I believe that as life gets more normal, people will get back to screenings. With the recommendation by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that CRC screening should begin at age 45, I expect that there will be an additional increase in screening soon.
Pivoting and developing a reopening plan
Almost immediately after the Department of Public Health issued the moratorium, Greater Boston Gastroenterology began putting together a reopening plan that would allow us to continue treating some patients and prepare for a surge once restrictions were lifted.
Part of our plan was to stay informed by talking with other practices about what they were doing and to stay abreast of policy changes at the local, state, and federal levels.
We also needed to keep our patients informed to alleviate safety concerns. Just prior to our reopening, we developed videos of the precautions that we were taking in all our facilities to assure our patients that we were doing everything possible to keep them safe. We also put information on our website through every stage of reopening so patients could know what to expect at their visits.
Helping our staff feel safe as they returned to work was also an important focus of our reopening plan. We prepared for our eventual reopening by installing safety measures such as plexiglass barriers and HEPA filter machines for our common areas and exam rooms. We also procured access to rapid turnaround polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing that allowed us to regularly test all patients seeking elective procedures. Additionally, we invested in point-of-care antigen tests for the office, and we regularly test all our patient-facing staff.
We had corralled enough personal protective equipment to keep our office infusion services operating with our nurses and patients feeling safe. The preparation allowed us to resume in-person visits almost immediately after the Department of Public Health allowed us to reopen.
Once we reopened, we concentrated on in-office visits for patients who were under 65 and at lower risk for COVID-19, while focusing our telemedicine efforts on patients who were older and at higher risk. We’re now back to seeing all patients who want to have in-office visits and are actually above par for our visits. The number of procedures we have performed in the last 3 months is similar to the 3 months before the pandemic.
During the pandemic, Massachusetts had the best conversion to telehealth in the nation, and it worked well for patients and providers. The key was to use several telehealth apps, as using only one may not work for everyone. Having several options made it likely that we would be able to do complete visits and connect with patients. When we needed to, we switched to telephone visits.
All the physicians and staff in our practice are telemedicine enthusiasts, and it will remain a significant part of our practices as long as Medicare, the state health plans, and commercial payers remain supportive.
Planning for a surge in screenings
There may be a surge in screenings once more people are vaccinated and comfortable getting back into the office, and we’re planning for this as well. We’ve recruited new physicians and have expanded our available hours for procedures at our ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Surprisingly, we have found that there is a lot of interest from physicians for weekend shifts at the ASC, and we now have a physician waiting list for Saturday procedure time.
With the new lower age for recommended screening, there will be a lag with primary care physicians referring their younger patients. This may provide some time to prepare for an increase in screenings resulting from this new policy.
Another strategy that has worked well for us is to train and develop our advanced practitioners into nonphysician experts in GI and liver disease. Greater Boston Gastroenterology has used this strategy since its founding, and we think our most experienced nurse practitioners could rival any office-based gastroenterologist in their acumen and capabilities.
Over the last 3 years we have transitioned our nonphysician practitioners into the inpatient setting. As a result, consults are completed earlier in the day, and we are better able to help coordinate inpatient procedure scheduling, discharge planning, and outpatient follow-up.
The time we spend on training is worth it. It improves customer service, allows us to book appointments with shorter notice, and overall has a positive effect on our bottom line. Utilizing our advanced providers in this capacity will help us manage any volume increases we see in the near future. In addition, most patients in our community are used to seeing advanced providers in their physician’s office, so the acceptance among our patients is high.
Being flexible and favoring strategic planning
Overall, I think the greatest thing we learned during the pandemic is that we need to be flexible. It was a helpful reminder that, in medicine, things are constantly changing. I remember when passing the GI boards seemed like my final step, but everyone comes to realize it is just the first step in the journey.
As an early-career physician, you should remember the hard work that helped you get to medical school, land a good residency, stand out to get a fellowship, and master your specialty. Harness that personal drive and energy and keep moving forward. Remember that your first job is unlikely to be your last. Try not to see your choices as either/or – either academic or private practice, hospital-employed or self-employed. The boundaries are blurring. We have long careers and face myriad opportunities for professional advancement.
Be patient. Some goals take time to achieve. At each stage be prepared to work hard, use your time wisely, and try not to lose sight of maximizing your professional happiness.
Dr. Dickstein is a practicing gastroenterologist at Greater Boston Gastroenterology in Framingham, Mass., and serves on the executive committee of the Digestive Health Physicians Association. He has no conflicts to declare.
Understanding the grieving process
Loss is inevitable – and understanding essential
I arrived on the 6th floor nursing unit one day last fall to find halls abuzz with people. Something didn’t feel right, and then I a saw a nursing colleague with tears streaming down her face. My heart dropped. She looked up at me and said, “Dr Hass, K died last night.” She started to sob. I stood dumbfounded for a moment. We had lost a beloved coworker to COVID.
There has been a collective sense of grief in our country since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as we have all been suffering losses: smiles, touch, in-person relationships, a “normal life.” But it went to another level for us at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, Calif., with the passing of a couple of our beloved teammates in the fall. Strong emotions triggered by these events caused me to pause and think: “What is grief? Is it another word for sadness? How do we work through it?”
What is the difference between sadness and grief? While related, they are temporally and functionally quite different. Sadness is an emotion, and like all emotions, we feel it in brief episodes. Those moments of profound sadness only last minutes at a time. Sadness leads to decreased physiological arousal, especially after crying. When less intense, the physiological slowing is thought to allow for some mental clarity that lets the loss sink in and moves us toward a recalibration process. These episodes of sadness occur more frequently and with greater intensity the closer we are to the triggering event.
While emotions last minutes, mood, another affective state, lasts hours to days and is less intense and specific in content. A sad mood can be present much of the time after a significant loss. Emotions predispose to moods and vice versa.
Grief, on the other hand, is a complex and lengthy process that moves us from a place of loss to a new place with a new equilibrium without the lost object. While sadness is about fully acknowledging the loss, the grieving process is about getting beyond it. The bigger the loss, the bigger the hole in your life and the longer the grieving process. Grief is a multi-emotional process with people often experiencing a range of emotions, such as shock, anger, and fear in addition to sadness.
As I grappled with my sense of loss, I realized that understanding the grieving process was going to help me as I navigate this world now full of loss. Here are a few things we should all keep in mind.
A sense of mindful self-awareness
As we work through our grief, a mindful self-awareness can help us identify our emotions and see them as part of the grieving process. Simply anticipating emotions can lessen the impact of them when they come. As they come on, try to name the emotion, e.g., “I am so sad,” and feel the experience in the body. The sadness can be cathartic, and by focusing on the body and not the head, we can also drop the sometimes healthy, sometimes unhealthy rants and ruminations that can accompany these events. If we experience the emotions with mindful self-awareness, we can see our emotions as part of a healing, grieving process, and we will likely be able to handle them more gracefully.
In the days after the death of my nursing colleague, my sad mood would be interrupted with flares of anger triggered by thoughts of those not wearing masks or spreading misinformation. Moving my thoughts to the emotions, I would say to myself, “I am really angry, and I am angry because of these deaths.” I felt the recognition of the emotions helped me better ride the big waves on the grieving journey.
Counter to the thinking of the 20th century, research by George Bonanno at Columbia University found that the majority of bereavement is met with resilience. We will be sad, we might have moments of anger or denial or fear, but for most of us, despite the gravity of the loss, our innate resilience will lead about 50-80% of us to recover to near our baseline in months. It is nice to know we are not repressing things if we don’t pass through all the stages postulated by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the dominate paradigm in the field.1
For those grieving, this idea of resilience being the norm can provide reassurance during tough moments. While our degree of resilience will depend on our loss and our circumstance, the work of Lucy Hone, PhD, suggests that resilience can be fostered. Many of the negative feelings we experience have a flip side we can seek out. We can be grateful for what remains and what the departed has left us with. We can aid in our grieving journey by using many of the resources available from UC Berkeley’s Greater Good in Action (https://ggia.berkeley.edu/).
While most grief is met with resilience, complicated grieving with persistent negative moods and emotions is common. We should consider seeking professional help if our emotions and pattern of thought continue to feel unhealthy.
Meaning and wisdom, not acceptance
Another change in our understanding of grief is this: Instead of “acceptance” being seen as the end result of grieving, meaning and wisdom are now recognized as the outcomes. Research has found that efforts to find meaning in loss facilitates the grieving process. As time passes and our sadness lessens, the loved one doesn’t leave us but stays with us as a better understanding of the beauty and complexity of life. The loss, through grieving, is transformed to wisdom that will guide us through future challenges and help us make sense of the world.
Last week, masked and robed and with an iPad in hand so the family could join the conversation, I was talking to Ms. B who is hospitalized with COVID-19. She said, “I just keep thinking, ‘Why is this happening to me? To all of us?’ And then I realized that it is a message from God that we need to do a better job of taking care of each other, and I suddenly felt a little better. What do you think, Dr. Hass?”
“Wow,” I said. “Thank you for sharing that. There is definitely some truth there. There is a lot to learn from the pandemic about how we care for each other. I need to keep that in mind when I start feeling down.”
So much is going on now: climate change, racial violence, frightening political dysfunction, and a global pandemic that has upended our daily routines and the economy. It is hard to keep track of all the loss and uncertainty. We might not know why feelings of sadness, anger and anxiety come on, but if we can meet these emotions with mindful equanimity, see them as part of our intrinsic healing process and keep in mind that our path will likely be towards one of wisdom and sense-making, we can better navigate these profoundly unsettling times.
Just as sadness is not grief, joy alone does not lead to happiness. A happy life comes as much from meaning as joy. While unbridled joy might be in short supply, our grief, our work as hospitalists with the suffering, and confronting the many problems our world faces gives us the opportunity to lead a meaningful life. If we couple this search for meaning with healthy habits that promote wellbeing, such as hugs, investing in relationships, and moving our body in the natural world, we can survive these crazy times and be wiser beings as a result of our experiences.
Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter East Bay Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. He is a member of the clinical faculty at the University of California, Berkeley-UC San Francisco joint medical program, and an adviser on health and health care at the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.
Reference
1. Bonanno GA, and Boerner K. The stage theory of grief. JAMA. 2007;297(24):2692-2694. doi:10.1001/jama.297.24.2693-a.
Loss is inevitable – and understanding essential
Loss is inevitable – and understanding essential
I arrived on the 6th floor nursing unit one day last fall to find halls abuzz with people. Something didn’t feel right, and then I a saw a nursing colleague with tears streaming down her face. My heart dropped. She looked up at me and said, “Dr Hass, K died last night.” She started to sob. I stood dumbfounded for a moment. We had lost a beloved coworker to COVID.
There has been a collective sense of grief in our country since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as we have all been suffering losses: smiles, touch, in-person relationships, a “normal life.” But it went to another level for us at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, Calif., with the passing of a couple of our beloved teammates in the fall. Strong emotions triggered by these events caused me to pause and think: “What is grief? Is it another word for sadness? How do we work through it?”
What is the difference between sadness and grief? While related, they are temporally and functionally quite different. Sadness is an emotion, and like all emotions, we feel it in brief episodes. Those moments of profound sadness only last minutes at a time. Sadness leads to decreased physiological arousal, especially after crying. When less intense, the physiological slowing is thought to allow for some mental clarity that lets the loss sink in and moves us toward a recalibration process. These episodes of sadness occur more frequently and with greater intensity the closer we are to the triggering event.
While emotions last minutes, mood, another affective state, lasts hours to days and is less intense and specific in content. A sad mood can be present much of the time after a significant loss. Emotions predispose to moods and vice versa.
Grief, on the other hand, is a complex and lengthy process that moves us from a place of loss to a new place with a new equilibrium without the lost object. While sadness is about fully acknowledging the loss, the grieving process is about getting beyond it. The bigger the loss, the bigger the hole in your life and the longer the grieving process. Grief is a multi-emotional process with people often experiencing a range of emotions, such as shock, anger, and fear in addition to sadness.
As I grappled with my sense of loss, I realized that understanding the grieving process was going to help me as I navigate this world now full of loss. Here are a few things we should all keep in mind.
A sense of mindful self-awareness
As we work through our grief, a mindful self-awareness can help us identify our emotions and see them as part of the grieving process. Simply anticipating emotions can lessen the impact of them when they come. As they come on, try to name the emotion, e.g., “I am so sad,” and feel the experience in the body. The sadness can be cathartic, and by focusing on the body and not the head, we can also drop the sometimes healthy, sometimes unhealthy rants and ruminations that can accompany these events. If we experience the emotions with mindful self-awareness, we can see our emotions as part of a healing, grieving process, and we will likely be able to handle them more gracefully.
In the days after the death of my nursing colleague, my sad mood would be interrupted with flares of anger triggered by thoughts of those not wearing masks or spreading misinformation. Moving my thoughts to the emotions, I would say to myself, “I am really angry, and I am angry because of these deaths.” I felt the recognition of the emotions helped me better ride the big waves on the grieving journey.
Counter to the thinking of the 20th century, research by George Bonanno at Columbia University found that the majority of bereavement is met with resilience. We will be sad, we might have moments of anger or denial or fear, but for most of us, despite the gravity of the loss, our innate resilience will lead about 50-80% of us to recover to near our baseline in months. It is nice to know we are not repressing things if we don’t pass through all the stages postulated by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the dominate paradigm in the field.1
For those grieving, this idea of resilience being the norm can provide reassurance during tough moments. While our degree of resilience will depend on our loss and our circumstance, the work of Lucy Hone, PhD, suggests that resilience can be fostered. Many of the negative feelings we experience have a flip side we can seek out. We can be grateful for what remains and what the departed has left us with. We can aid in our grieving journey by using many of the resources available from UC Berkeley’s Greater Good in Action (https://ggia.berkeley.edu/).
While most grief is met with resilience, complicated grieving with persistent negative moods and emotions is common. We should consider seeking professional help if our emotions and pattern of thought continue to feel unhealthy.
Meaning and wisdom, not acceptance
Another change in our understanding of grief is this: Instead of “acceptance” being seen as the end result of grieving, meaning and wisdom are now recognized as the outcomes. Research has found that efforts to find meaning in loss facilitates the grieving process. As time passes and our sadness lessens, the loved one doesn’t leave us but stays with us as a better understanding of the beauty and complexity of life. The loss, through grieving, is transformed to wisdom that will guide us through future challenges and help us make sense of the world.
Last week, masked and robed and with an iPad in hand so the family could join the conversation, I was talking to Ms. B who is hospitalized with COVID-19. She said, “I just keep thinking, ‘Why is this happening to me? To all of us?’ And then I realized that it is a message from God that we need to do a better job of taking care of each other, and I suddenly felt a little better. What do you think, Dr. Hass?”
“Wow,” I said. “Thank you for sharing that. There is definitely some truth there. There is a lot to learn from the pandemic about how we care for each other. I need to keep that in mind when I start feeling down.”
So much is going on now: climate change, racial violence, frightening political dysfunction, and a global pandemic that has upended our daily routines and the economy. It is hard to keep track of all the loss and uncertainty. We might not know why feelings of sadness, anger and anxiety come on, but if we can meet these emotions with mindful equanimity, see them as part of our intrinsic healing process and keep in mind that our path will likely be towards one of wisdom and sense-making, we can better navigate these profoundly unsettling times.
Just as sadness is not grief, joy alone does not lead to happiness. A happy life comes as much from meaning as joy. While unbridled joy might be in short supply, our grief, our work as hospitalists with the suffering, and confronting the many problems our world faces gives us the opportunity to lead a meaningful life. If we couple this search for meaning with healthy habits that promote wellbeing, such as hugs, investing in relationships, and moving our body in the natural world, we can survive these crazy times and be wiser beings as a result of our experiences.
Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter East Bay Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. He is a member of the clinical faculty at the University of California, Berkeley-UC San Francisco joint medical program, and an adviser on health and health care at the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.
Reference
1. Bonanno GA, and Boerner K. The stage theory of grief. JAMA. 2007;297(24):2692-2694. doi:10.1001/jama.297.24.2693-a.
I arrived on the 6th floor nursing unit one day last fall to find halls abuzz with people. Something didn’t feel right, and then I a saw a nursing colleague with tears streaming down her face. My heart dropped. She looked up at me and said, “Dr Hass, K died last night.” She started to sob. I stood dumbfounded for a moment. We had lost a beloved coworker to COVID.
There has been a collective sense of grief in our country since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as we have all been suffering losses: smiles, touch, in-person relationships, a “normal life.” But it went to another level for us at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, Calif., with the passing of a couple of our beloved teammates in the fall. Strong emotions triggered by these events caused me to pause and think: “What is grief? Is it another word for sadness? How do we work through it?”
What is the difference between sadness and grief? While related, they are temporally and functionally quite different. Sadness is an emotion, and like all emotions, we feel it in brief episodes. Those moments of profound sadness only last minutes at a time. Sadness leads to decreased physiological arousal, especially after crying. When less intense, the physiological slowing is thought to allow for some mental clarity that lets the loss sink in and moves us toward a recalibration process. These episodes of sadness occur more frequently and with greater intensity the closer we are to the triggering event.
While emotions last minutes, mood, another affective state, lasts hours to days and is less intense and specific in content. A sad mood can be present much of the time after a significant loss. Emotions predispose to moods and vice versa.
Grief, on the other hand, is a complex and lengthy process that moves us from a place of loss to a new place with a new equilibrium without the lost object. While sadness is about fully acknowledging the loss, the grieving process is about getting beyond it. The bigger the loss, the bigger the hole in your life and the longer the grieving process. Grief is a multi-emotional process with people often experiencing a range of emotions, such as shock, anger, and fear in addition to sadness.
As I grappled with my sense of loss, I realized that understanding the grieving process was going to help me as I navigate this world now full of loss. Here are a few things we should all keep in mind.
A sense of mindful self-awareness
As we work through our grief, a mindful self-awareness can help us identify our emotions and see them as part of the grieving process. Simply anticipating emotions can lessen the impact of them when they come. As they come on, try to name the emotion, e.g., “I am so sad,” and feel the experience in the body. The sadness can be cathartic, and by focusing on the body and not the head, we can also drop the sometimes healthy, sometimes unhealthy rants and ruminations that can accompany these events. If we experience the emotions with mindful self-awareness, we can see our emotions as part of a healing, grieving process, and we will likely be able to handle them more gracefully.
In the days after the death of my nursing colleague, my sad mood would be interrupted with flares of anger triggered by thoughts of those not wearing masks or spreading misinformation. Moving my thoughts to the emotions, I would say to myself, “I am really angry, and I am angry because of these deaths.” I felt the recognition of the emotions helped me better ride the big waves on the grieving journey.
Counter to the thinking of the 20th century, research by George Bonanno at Columbia University found that the majority of bereavement is met with resilience. We will be sad, we might have moments of anger or denial or fear, but for most of us, despite the gravity of the loss, our innate resilience will lead about 50-80% of us to recover to near our baseline in months. It is nice to know we are not repressing things if we don’t pass through all the stages postulated by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, the dominate paradigm in the field.1
For those grieving, this idea of resilience being the norm can provide reassurance during tough moments. While our degree of resilience will depend on our loss and our circumstance, the work of Lucy Hone, PhD, suggests that resilience can be fostered. Many of the negative feelings we experience have a flip side we can seek out. We can be grateful for what remains and what the departed has left us with. We can aid in our grieving journey by using many of the resources available from UC Berkeley’s Greater Good in Action (https://ggia.berkeley.edu/).
While most grief is met with resilience, complicated grieving with persistent negative moods and emotions is common. We should consider seeking professional help if our emotions and pattern of thought continue to feel unhealthy.
Meaning and wisdom, not acceptance
Another change in our understanding of grief is this: Instead of “acceptance” being seen as the end result of grieving, meaning and wisdom are now recognized as the outcomes. Research has found that efforts to find meaning in loss facilitates the grieving process. As time passes and our sadness lessens, the loved one doesn’t leave us but stays with us as a better understanding of the beauty and complexity of life. The loss, through grieving, is transformed to wisdom that will guide us through future challenges and help us make sense of the world.
Last week, masked and robed and with an iPad in hand so the family could join the conversation, I was talking to Ms. B who is hospitalized with COVID-19. She said, “I just keep thinking, ‘Why is this happening to me? To all of us?’ And then I realized that it is a message from God that we need to do a better job of taking care of each other, and I suddenly felt a little better. What do you think, Dr. Hass?”
“Wow,” I said. “Thank you for sharing that. There is definitely some truth there. There is a lot to learn from the pandemic about how we care for each other. I need to keep that in mind when I start feeling down.”
So much is going on now: climate change, racial violence, frightening political dysfunction, and a global pandemic that has upended our daily routines and the economy. It is hard to keep track of all the loss and uncertainty. We might not know why feelings of sadness, anger and anxiety come on, but if we can meet these emotions with mindful equanimity, see them as part of our intrinsic healing process and keep in mind that our path will likely be towards one of wisdom and sense-making, we can better navigate these profoundly unsettling times.
Just as sadness is not grief, joy alone does not lead to happiness. A happy life comes as much from meaning as joy. While unbridled joy might be in short supply, our grief, our work as hospitalists with the suffering, and confronting the many problems our world faces gives us the opportunity to lead a meaningful life. If we couple this search for meaning with healthy habits that promote wellbeing, such as hugs, investing in relationships, and moving our body in the natural world, we can survive these crazy times and be wiser beings as a result of our experiences.
Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter East Bay Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. He is a member of the clinical faculty at the University of California, Berkeley-UC San Francisco joint medical program, and an adviser on health and health care at the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.
Reference
1. Bonanno GA, and Boerner K. The stage theory of grief. JAMA. 2007;297(24):2692-2694. doi:10.1001/jama.297.24.2693-a.
Supreme Court upholds Affordable Care Act
The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate, the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.
“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.
President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.
This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.
American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.
“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”
“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.
“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”
This article was updated June 17, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate, the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.
“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.
President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.
This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.
American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.
“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”
“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.
“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”
This article was updated June 17, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate, the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.
“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.
President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.
This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.
American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.
“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”
“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.
“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”
This article was updated June 17, 2021.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.