Mixed Topics

Career Development Workshops Series

The AGA Career Development Workshops equip trainees and early-career GIs with indispensable knowledge and skills to successfully navigate the career path ahead. Over the course of the workshops, you will gain vital insights and advice to advance in your career with education not formally part of the training program curriculum. Workshops take place virtually and include topics like “How to Evaluate a Job in 2021,” “How to Succeed in Academic or Private Practice During COVID-19,” “Life in Industry,” and more. Workshops continue to be added monthly. Register today.

Save the date for DDW Virtual™

In 2021, Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.

For more than 50 years, members of the digestive disease community have connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.

Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk.

DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

Gastro.org/DDW2021.
 

We did it!

Thank you for helping us raise $231,357 on AGA Giving Day to fund health disparity research!

The past few months were unlike any we’ve ever experienced, and above all we knew we needed to take action to provide a better future for digestive health patients. That’s why AGA and the AGA Research Foundation launched AGA Giving Day to address health disparities that negatively affect our patients head on. We couldn’t have led the fight to eradicate disparities in GI without our loyal supporters.

AGA Giving Day provided an opportunity to do something about health care differences that lead to poorer outcomes due to race and socioeconomic status. Thanks to the support of all our donors and funders, we raised $231,357 to fund health disparities research.

All donations will go directly into research awards earmarked for GI health disparities research. Health disparities research is the key to understanding how we can improve disease management for every patient.

During these trying times, there is one thing that hasn’t and won’t change: our commitment to our mission of raising funds to support talented researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology. While there is still more work ahead, we know we can move forward with the help of friends like you.

Thank you for being part of our fight to eradicate disparities in GI. Learn more about our other efforts through the AGA Equity Project.

Gastro.org/GivingDay
 

Career Development Workshops Series

The AGA Career Development Workshops equip trainees and early-career GIs with indispensable knowledge and skills to successfully navigate the career path ahead. Over the course of the workshops, you will gain vital insights and advice to advance in your career with education not formally part of the training program curriculum. Workshops take place virtually and include topics like “How to Evaluate a Job in 2021,” “How to Succeed in Academic or Private Practice During COVID-19,” “Life in Industry,” and more. Workshops continue to be added monthly. Register today.

Save the date for DDW Virtual™

In 2021, Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.

For more than 50 years, members of the digestive disease community have connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.

Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk.

DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

Gastro.org/DDW2021.
 

We did it!

Thank you for helping us raise $231,357 on AGA Giving Day to fund health disparity research!

The past few months were unlike any we’ve ever experienced, and above all we knew we needed to take action to provide a better future for digestive health patients. That’s why AGA and the AGA Research Foundation launched AGA Giving Day to address health disparities that negatively affect our patients head on. We couldn’t have led the fight to eradicate disparities in GI without our loyal supporters.

AGA Giving Day provided an opportunity to do something about health care differences that lead to poorer outcomes due to race and socioeconomic status. Thanks to the support of all our donors and funders, we raised $231,357 to fund health disparities research.

All donations will go directly into research awards earmarked for GI health disparities research. Health disparities research is the key to understanding how we can improve disease management for every patient.

During these trying times, there is one thing that hasn’t and won’t change: our commitment to our mission of raising funds to support talented researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology. While there is still more work ahead, we know we can move forward with the help of friends like you.

Thank you for being part of our fight to eradicate disparities in GI. Learn more about our other efforts through the AGA Equity Project.

Gastro.org/GivingDay
 

Career Development Workshops Series

The AGA Career Development Workshops equip trainees and early-career GIs with indispensable knowledge and skills to successfully navigate the career path ahead. Over the course of the workshops, you will gain vital insights and advice to advance in your career with education not formally part of the training program curriculum. Workshops take place virtually and include topics like “How to Evaluate a Job in 2021,” “How to Succeed in Academic or Private Practice During COVID-19,” “Life in Industry,” and more. Workshops continue to be added monthly. Register today.

Save the date for DDW Virtual™

In 2021, Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.

For more than 50 years, members of the digestive disease community have connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.

Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk.

DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

Gastro.org/DDW2021.
 

We did it!

Thank you for helping us raise $231,357 on AGA Giving Day to fund health disparity research!

The past few months were unlike any we’ve ever experienced, and above all we knew we needed to take action to provide a better future for digestive health patients. That’s why AGA and the AGA Research Foundation launched AGA Giving Day to address health disparities that negatively affect our patients head on. We couldn’t have led the fight to eradicate disparities in GI without our loyal supporters.

AGA Giving Day provided an opportunity to do something about health care differences that lead to poorer outcomes due to race and socioeconomic status. Thanks to the support of all our donors and funders, we raised $231,357 to fund health disparities research.

All donations will go directly into research awards earmarked for GI health disparities research. Health disparities research is the key to understanding how we can improve disease management for every patient.

During these trying times, there is one thing that hasn’t and won’t change: our commitment to our mission of raising funds to support talented researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology. While there is still more work ahead, we know we can move forward with the help of friends like you.

Thank you for being part of our fight to eradicate disparities in GI. Learn more about our other efforts through the AGA Equity Project.

Gastro.org/GivingDay
 

For more information about the American Gastroenterological Association’s upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
 

Upcoming Events

May 1, 2021
2021 AGA Postgraduate Course (Virtual Event)
Discover emerging science, leverage new tools and technologies and build lasting collaborations that will transform GI research and patient care at the AGA Postgraduate Course. Receive updates here.

May 21-23, 2021
Digestive Disease Week® (Virtual Event)
Save the date for the world’s leading event in digestive disease. DDW® brings professionals in gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy, and GI surgery together. Experience growth when you share your research, converge with trailblazers, and improve the lives of patients suffering from GI and liver diseases.

Early bird registration: Jan. 20 to Mar. 31, 2021.
 

Award Deadlines

AGA Student Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year 3) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Student Abstract of the Year.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA–Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This award provides support to early career (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at DDW.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)
These fellowships support undergraduate students from groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research to perform 10 weeks of research related to digestive diseases under the mentorship of top investigators in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The award provides a stipend, funding to offset travel and meal expenses, and opportunities to learn about future training and career options.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021

For more information about the American Gastroenterological Association’s upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
 

Upcoming Events

May 1, 2021
2021 AGA Postgraduate Course (Virtual Event)
Discover emerging science, leverage new tools and technologies and build lasting collaborations that will transform GI research and patient care at the AGA Postgraduate Course. Receive updates here.

May 21-23, 2021
Digestive Disease Week® (Virtual Event)
Save the date for the world’s leading event in digestive disease. DDW® brings professionals in gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy, and GI surgery together. Experience growth when you share your research, converge with trailblazers, and improve the lives of patients suffering from GI and liver diseases.

Early bird registration: Jan. 20 to Mar. 31, 2021.
 

Award Deadlines

AGA Student Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year 3) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Student Abstract of the Year.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA–Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This award provides support to early career (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at DDW.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)
These fellowships support undergraduate students from groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research to perform 10 weeks of research related to digestive diseases under the mentorship of top investigators in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The award provides a stipend, funding to offset travel and meal expenses, and opportunities to learn about future training and career options.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021

For more information about the American Gastroenterological Association’s upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.
 

Upcoming Events

May 1, 2021
2021 AGA Postgraduate Course (Virtual Event)
Discover emerging science, leverage new tools and technologies and build lasting collaborations that will transform GI research and patient care at the AGA Postgraduate Course. Receive updates here.

May 21-23, 2021
Digestive Disease Week® (Virtual Event)
Save the date for the world’s leading event in digestive disease. DDW® brings professionals in gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy, and GI surgery together. Experience growth when you share your research, converge with trailblazers, and improve the lives of patients suffering from GI and liver diseases.

Early bird registration: Jan. 20 to Mar. 31, 2021.
 

Award Deadlines

AGA Student Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are graduate students, medical students, or medical residents (residents up to postgraduate year 3) giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Student Abstract of the Year.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA–Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Awards
This award provides support to early career (i.e., 35 years of age or younger at the time of Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)) basic, translational or clinical investigators residing outside North America giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at DDW.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA Fellow Abstract Award
This award supports recipients who are MD, PhD, or equivalent fellows giving abstract-based oral or poster presentations at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW). The top scoring abstract will be designated the Fellow Abstract of the Year.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021
 

AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF)
These fellowships support undergraduate students from groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research to perform 10 weeks of research related to digestive diseases under the mentorship of top investigators in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The award provides a stipend, funding to offset travel and meal expenses, and opportunities to learn about future training and career options.

Application Deadline: Feb. 24, 2021

The management of delusional infestation (DI), also known as Morgellons disease or delusional parasitosis, can lead to some of the most difficult and stressful patient encounters in dermatology. As a specialty, dermatology providers are trained to respect scientific objectivity and pride themselves on their visual diagnostic acumen. Therefore, having to accommodate a patient’s erroneous ideations and potentially treat a psychiatric pathology poses a challenge for many dermatology providers because it requires shifting their mindset to where the subjective reality becomes the primary issue during the visit. This disconnect may lead to strife between the patient and the provider. All of these issues may make it difficult for dermatologists to connect with DI patients with the usual courtesy and consideration given to other patients. Moreover, some dermatologists find it difficult to respect the chief concern, which often is seen as purely psychological because there may be some lingering bias where psychological concerns perhaps are not seen as bona fide or legitimate disorders.

Is There a Biologic Basis for DI? A New Theory on the Etiology of Delusional Parasitosis

It is important to distinguish DI phenomenology into primary and secondary causes. Primary DI refers to cases where the delusion and formication occur spontaneously. In contrast, in secondary DI the delusion and other manifestations (eg, formication) happen secondarily to underlying broader diagnoses such as illicit substance abuse, primary psychiatric conditions including schizophrenia, organic brain syndrome, and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency.

It is well known that primary DI overwhelmingly occurs in older women, whereas secondary DI does not show this same predilection. It has been a big unanswered question as to why primary DI so often occurs not only in women but specifically in older women. The latest theory that has been advancing in Europe and is supported by some data, including magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, involves the dopamine transporter (DAT) system, which is important in making sure the dopamine level in the intersynaptic space is not excessive.¹ The DAT system is much more prominent in woman vs men and deteriorates with age due to declining estrogen levels. This age-related loss of striatal DAT is thought to be one possible etiology of DI. It has been hypothesized that decreased DAT functioning may cause an increase in extracellular striatal dopamine levels in the synapse that can lead to tactile hallucinations and delusions, which are hallmark symptoms seen in DI. Given that women experience a greater age-related DAT decline in striatal subregions than men, it is thought that primary DI mainly affects older women due to the decline of neuroprotective effects of estrogen on DAT activity with age.² Further studies should evaluate the possibility of estrogen replacement therapy for treatment of DI.

Improving Care of Psychodermatology Patients in Clinic

There are several medications that are known to be effective for the treatment of DI, including pimozide, risperidone, aripiprazole, and olanzapine, among others. Pimozide is uniquely accepted by DI patients because it has no official psychiatric indication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); it is only indicated in the United States for Tourette syndrome, which is a neurologic disorder. Therefore, pimozide arguably can be disregarded as a true antipsychotic agent. The fact that its chemical structure is similar to those of bona fide antipsychotic medications does not necessarily put it in this same category, as there also are antiemetic and antitussive medications (eg, prochlorperazine, promethazine) with chemical structures similar to antipsychotics, but clinicians generally do not think of these drugs as antipsychotics despite the similarities. This nuanced and admittedly somewhat arbitrary categorization is critical to patient care; in our clinic, we have found that patients who categorically refuse to consider all psychiatric medications are much more willing to try pimozide for this very reason, that this medication can uniquely be presented to the DI patient as an agent not used in psychiatry. We have found great success in treatment with pimozide, even with relatively low doses.^3,4

One of the main reasons dermatologists are reluctant to prescribe antipsychotic medications or even pimozide is the concern for side effects, especially tardive dyskinesia (TD), which is thought to be irreversible and untreatable. However, after a half century of worldwide use of pimozide in dermatology, a PubMed search of English-language articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pimozide and tardive dyskinesia, tardive dyskinesia and delusions of parasitosis, tardive dyskinesia and dermatology, and tardive dyskinesia and delusional infestation/Morgellons disease yielded only 1 known case of TD reported in dermatologic use for DI.⁵ In this particular case, TD-like symptoms did not appear until after pimozide had been discontinued for 1 month. Therefore, it is not clear if this case was true TD or a condition known as withdrawal dyskinesia, which mimics TD and usually is self-limiting.⁵

The senior author (J.K.) has been using pimozide for treatment of DI for more than 30 years and has not encountered TD or any other notable side effects. The reason for this extremely low incidence of side effects may be due to its high efficacy in treating DI; hence, only a low dose of pimozide usually is needed. At the University of California, San Francisco, Psychodermatology Clinic, pimozide typically is used to treat DI at a low dose of 3 mg or less daily, starting with 0.5 or 1 mg and slowly titrating upward until a clinically effective dose is reached. Pimozide rarely is used long-term; after the resolution of symptoms, the dose usually is continued at the clinically effective dose for a few months and then is slowly tapered off. In contrast, for a condition such as schizophrenia, an antipsychotic medication often is needed at high doses for life, resulting in higher TD occurrences being reported. Therefore, even though the newer antipsychotic agents are preferable to pimozide because of their somewhat lower risk for TD, in actual clinical practice many, if not most, DI patients detest any suggestion of taking a medication for “crazy people.” Thus, we find that pimozide’s inherent superior acceptability among DI patients often is critical to enabling any effective treatment to occur at all due to the fact that the provider can honestly say that pimozide has no FDA psychiatric indication.

Still, one of the biggest apprehensions with initiating and continuing these medications in dermatology is fear of TD. Now, dermatologists can be made aware that if this very rare side effect occurs, there are medications approved to treat TD, even if the anti-TD therapy is administered by a neurologist. For the first time, 2 medications were approved by the FDA for treatment of TD in 2017, namely valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. These medications represent a class known as vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 inhibitors and function by ultimately reducing the amount of dopamine released from the presynaptic dopaminergic neurons. In phase 3 trials for valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, 40% (N=234) and 34% (N=222) of patients, respectively, achieved a response, which was defined as at least a 50% decrease from baseline on the abnormal involuntary movement scale dyskinesia score in 6 to 12 weeks compared to 9% and 12%, respectively, with placebo.Discontinuation because of an adverse event was seldom encountered with both medications.⁶

Conclusion

The recent developments in psychodermatology with regard to DI are encouraging. The advent of new evidence and theories suggestive of an organic basis for DI could help this condition become more respected in the eyes of the dermatologist as a bona fide disorder. Moreover, the new developments and availability of medications that can treat TD can further make it easier for dermatologists to consider offering DI patients truly meaningful treatment that they desperately need. Therefore, both of these developments are welcomed for our specialty.

The management of delusional infestation (DI), also known as Morgellons disease or delusional parasitosis, can lead to some of the most difficult and stressful patient encounters in dermatology. As a specialty, dermatology providers are trained to respect scientific objectivity and pride themselves on their visual diagnostic acumen. Therefore, having to accommodate a patient’s erroneous ideations and potentially treat a psychiatric pathology poses a challenge for many dermatology providers because it requires shifting their mindset to where the subjective reality becomes the primary issue during the visit. This disconnect may lead to strife between the patient and the provider. All of these issues may make it difficult for dermatologists to connect with DI patients with the usual courtesy and consideration given to other patients. Moreover, some dermatologists find it difficult to respect the chief concern, which often is seen as purely psychological because there may be some lingering bias where psychological concerns perhaps are not seen as bona fide or legitimate disorders.

Is There a Biologic Basis for DI? A New Theory on the Etiology of Delusional Parasitosis

It is important to distinguish DI phenomenology into primary and secondary causes. Primary DI refers to cases where the delusion and formication occur spontaneously. In contrast, in secondary DI the delusion and other manifestations (eg, formication) happen secondarily to underlying broader diagnoses such as illicit substance abuse, primary psychiatric conditions including schizophrenia, organic brain syndrome, and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency.

It is well known that primary DI overwhelmingly occurs in older women, whereas secondary DI does not show this same predilection. It has been a big unanswered question as to why primary DI so often occurs not only in women but specifically in older women. The latest theory that has been advancing in Europe and is supported by some data, including magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, involves the dopamine transporter (DAT) system, which is important in making sure the dopamine level in the intersynaptic space is not excessive.¹ The DAT system is much more prominent in woman vs men and deteriorates with age due to declining estrogen levels. This age-related loss of striatal DAT is thought to be one possible etiology of DI. It has been hypothesized that decreased DAT functioning may cause an increase in extracellular striatal dopamine levels in the synapse that can lead to tactile hallucinations and delusions, which are hallmark symptoms seen in DI. Given that women experience a greater age-related DAT decline in striatal subregions than men, it is thought that primary DI mainly affects older women due to the decline of neuroprotective effects of estrogen on DAT activity with age.² Further studies should evaluate the possibility of estrogen replacement therapy for treatment of DI.

Improving Care of Psychodermatology Patients in Clinic

There are several medications that are known to be effective for the treatment of DI, including pimozide, risperidone, aripiprazole, and olanzapine, among others. Pimozide is uniquely accepted by DI patients because it has no official psychiatric indication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); it is only indicated in the United States for Tourette syndrome, which is a neurologic disorder. Therefore, pimozide arguably can be disregarded as a true antipsychotic agent. The fact that its chemical structure is similar to those of bona fide antipsychotic medications does not necessarily put it in this same category, as there also are antiemetic and antitussive medications (eg, prochlorperazine, promethazine) with chemical structures similar to antipsychotics, but clinicians generally do not think of these drugs as antipsychotics despite the similarities. This nuanced and admittedly somewhat arbitrary categorization is critical to patient care; in our clinic, we have found that patients who categorically refuse to consider all psychiatric medications are much more willing to try pimozide for this very reason, that this medication can uniquely be presented to the DI patient as an agent not used in psychiatry. We have found great success in treatment with pimozide, even with relatively low doses.^3,4

One of the main reasons dermatologists are reluctant to prescribe antipsychotic medications or even pimozide is the concern for side effects, especially tardive dyskinesia (TD), which is thought to be irreversible and untreatable. However, after a half century of worldwide use of pimozide in dermatology, a PubMed search of English-language articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pimozide and tardive dyskinesia, tardive dyskinesia and delusions of parasitosis, tardive dyskinesia and dermatology, and tardive dyskinesia and delusional infestation/Morgellons disease yielded only 1 known case of TD reported in dermatologic use for DI.⁵ In this particular case, TD-like symptoms did not appear until after pimozide had been discontinued for 1 month. Therefore, it is not clear if this case was true TD or a condition known as withdrawal dyskinesia, which mimics TD and usually is self-limiting.⁵

The senior author (J.K.) has been using pimozide for treatment of DI for more than 30 years and has not encountered TD or any other notable side effects. The reason for this extremely low incidence of side effects may be due to its high efficacy in treating DI; hence, only a low dose of pimozide usually is needed. At the University of California, San Francisco, Psychodermatology Clinic, pimozide typically is used to treat DI at a low dose of 3 mg or less daily, starting with 0.5 or 1 mg and slowly titrating upward until a clinically effective dose is reached. Pimozide rarely is used long-term; after the resolution of symptoms, the dose usually is continued at the clinically effective dose for a few months and then is slowly tapered off. In contrast, for a condition such as schizophrenia, an antipsychotic medication often is needed at high doses for life, resulting in higher TD occurrences being reported. Therefore, even though the newer antipsychotic agents are preferable to pimozide because of their somewhat lower risk for TD, in actual clinical practice many, if not most, DI patients detest any suggestion of taking a medication for “crazy people.” Thus, we find that pimozide’s inherent superior acceptability among DI patients often is critical to enabling any effective treatment to occur at all due to the fact that the provider can honestly say that pimozide has no FDA psychiatric indication.

Still, one of the biggest apprehensions with initiating and continuing these medications in dermatology is fear of TD. Now, dermatologists can be made aware that if this very rare side effect occurs, there are medications approved to treat TD, even if the anti-TD therapy is administered by a neurologist. For the first time, 2 medications were approved by the FDA for treatment of TD in 2017, namely valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. These medications represent a class known as vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 inhibitors and function by ultimately reducing the amount of dopamine released from the presynaptic dopaminergic neurons. In phase 3 trials for valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, 40% (N=234) and 34% (N=222) of patients, respectively, achieved a response, which was defined as at least a 50% decrease from baseline on the abnormal involuntary movement scale dyskinesia score in 6 to 12 weeks compared to 9% and 12%, respectively, with placebo.Discontinuation because of an adverse event was seldom encountered with both medications.⁶

Conclusion

The recent developments in psychodermatology with regard to DI are encouraging. The advent of new evidence and theories suggestive of an organic basis for DI could help this condition become more respected in the eyes of the dermatologist as a bona fide disorder. Moreover, the new developments and availability of medications that can treat TD can further make it easier for dermatologists to consider offering DI patients truly meaningful treatment that they desperately need. Therefore, both of these developments are welcomed for our specialty.

The management of delusional infestation (DI), also known as Morgellons disease or delusional parasitosis, can lead to some of the most difficult and stressful patient encounters in dermatology. As a specialty, dermatology providers are trained to respect scientific objectivity and pride themselves on their visual diagnostic acumen. Therefore, having to accommodate a patient’s erroneous ideations and potentially treat a psychiatric pathology poses a challenge for many dermatology providers because it requires shifting their mindset to where the subjective reality becomes the primary issue during the visit. This disconnect may lead to strife between the patient and the provider. All of these issues may make it difficult for dermatologists to connect with DI patients with the usual courtesy and consideration given to other patients. Moreover, some dermatologists find it difficult to respect the chief concern, which often is seen as purely psychological because there may be some lingering bias where psychological concerns perhaps are not seen as bona fide or legitimate disorders.

Is There a Biologic Basis for DI? A New Theory on the Etiology of Delusional Parasitosis

It is important to distinguish DI phenomenology into primary and secondary causes. Primary DI refers to cases where the delusion and formication occur spontaneously. In contrast, in secondary DI the delusion and other manifestations (eg, formication) happen secondarily to underlying broader diagnoses such as illicit substance abuse, primary psychiatric conditions including schizophrenia, organic brain syndrome, and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency.

It is well known that primary DI overwhelmingly occurs in older women, whereas secondary DI does not show this same predilection. It has been a big unanswered question as to why primary DI so often occurs not only in women but specifically in older women. The latest theory that has been advancing in Europe and is supported by some data, including magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, involves the dopamine transporter (DAT) system, which is important in making sure the dopamine level in the intersynaptic space is not excessive.¹ The DAT system is much more prominent in woman vs men and deteriorates with age due to declining estrogen levels. This age-related loss of striatal DAT is thought to be one possible etiology of DI. It has been hypothesized that decreased DAT functioning may cause an increase in extracellular striatal dopamine levels in the synapse that can lead to tactile hallucinations and delusions, which are hallmark symptoms seen in DI. Given that women experience a greater age-related DAT decline in striatal subregions than men, it is thought that primary DI mainly affects older women due to the decline of neuroprotective effects of estrogen on DAT activity with age.² Further studies should evaluate the possibility of estrogen replacement therapy for treatment of DI.

Improving Care of Psychodermatology Patients in Clinic

There are several medications that are known to be effective for the treatment of DI, including pimozide, risperidone, aripiprazole, and olanzapine, among others. Pimozide is uniquely accepted by DI patients because it has no official psychiatric indication from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); it is only indicated in the United States for Tourette syndrome, which is a neurologic disorder. Therefore, pimozide arguably can be disregarded as a true antipsychotic agent. The fact that its chemical structure is similar to those of bona fide antipsychotic medications does not necessarily put it in this same category, as there also are antiemetic and antitussive medications (eg, prochlorperazine, promethazine) with chemical structures similar to antipsychotics, but clinicians generally do not think of these drugs as antipsychotics despite the similarities. This nuanced and admittedly somewhat arbitrary categorization is critical to patient care; in our clinic, we have found that patients who categorically refuse to consider all psychiatric medications are much more willing to try pimozide for this very reason, that this medication can uniquely be presented to the DI patient as an agent not used in psychiatry. We have found great success in treatment with pimozide, even with relatively low doses.^3,4

One of the main reasons dermatologists are reluctant to prescribe antipsychotic medications or even pimozide is the concern for side effects, especially tardive dyskinesia (TD), which is thought to be irreversible and untreatable. However, after a half century of worldwide use of pimozide in dermatology, a PubMed search of English-language articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pimozide and tardive dyskinesia, tardive dyskinesia and delusions of parasitosis, tardive dyskinesia and dermatology, and tardive dyskinesia and delusional infestation/Morgellons disease yielded only 1 known case of TD reported in dermatologic use for DI.⁵ In this particular case, TD-like symptoms did not appear until after pimozide had been discontinued for 1 month. Therefore, it is not clear if this case was true TD or a condition known as withdrawal dyskinesia, which mimics TD and usually is self-limiting.⁵

The senior author (J.K.) has been using pimozide for treatment of DI for more than 30 years and has not encountered TD or any other notable side effects. The reason for this extremely low incidence of side effects may be due to its high efficacy in treating DI; hence, only a low dose of pimozide usually is needed. At the University of California, San Francisco, Psychodermatology Clinic, pimozide typically is used to treat DI at a low dose of 3 mg or less daily, starting with 0.5 or 1 mg and slowly titrating upward until a clinically effective dose is reached. Pimozide rarely is used long-term; after the resolution of symptoms, the dose usually is continued at the clinically effective dose for a few months and then is slowly tapered off. In contrast, for a condition such as schizophrenia, an antipsychotic medication often is needed at high doses for life, resulting in higher TD occurrences being reported. Therefore, even though the newer antipsychotic agents are preferable to pimozide because of their somewhat lower risk for TD, in actual clinical practice many, if not most, DI patients detest any suggestion of taking a medication for “crazy people.” Thus, we find that pimozide’s inherent superior acceptability among DI patients often is critical to enabling any effective treatment to occur at all due to the fact that the provider can honestly say that pimozide has no FDA psychiatric indication.

Still, one of the biggest apprehensions with initiating and continuing these medications in dermatology is fear of TD. Now, dermatologists can be made aware that if this very rare side effect occurs, there are medications approved to treat TD, even if the anti-TD therapy is administered by a neurologist. For the first time, 2 medications were approved by the FDA for treatment of TD in 2017, namely valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. These medications represent a class known as vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 inhibitors and function by ultimately reducing the amount of dopamine released from the presynaptic dopaminergic neurons. In phase 3 trials for valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, 40% (N=234) and 34% (N=222) of patients, respectively, achieved a response, which was defined as at least a 50% decrease from baseline on the abnormal involuntary movement scale dyskinesia score in 6 to 12 weeks compared to 9% and 12%, respectively, with placebo.Discontinuation because of an adverse event was seldom encountered with both medications.⁶

Conclusion

The recent developments in psychodermatology with regard to DI are encouraging. The advent of new evidence and theories suggestive of an organic basis for DI could help this condition become more respected in the eyes of the dermatologist as a bona fide disorder. Moreover, the new developments and availability of medications that can treat TD can further make it easier for dermatologists to consider offering DI patients truly meaningful treatment that they desperately need. Therefore, both of these developments are welcomed for our specialty.

The Diagnosis: Trigeminal Trophic Syndrome (Self-induced Trauma) 

The patient admitted to manipulation of the ala in response to persistent pain despite resolution of the herpes zoster, for which he recently had completed a course of oral acyclovir. A preliminary diagnosis of trigeminal trophic syndrome (TTS) was made, and a subsequent punch biopsy revealed no evidence of malignancy. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed, and he was instructed to avoid manipulation of the affected area. Treatment was initiated in consultation with pain specialists, and over the following 3 years our patient experienced a waxing and waning course of persistent pain complicated by new scalp and oral ulcers as well as alar impetigo. His condition eventually stabilized with tolerable pain on oral gabapentin and doxepin cream 5% applied up to 4 times daily. The alar lesion healed following sufficient abstinence from manipulation, leaving a crescent-shaped rim defect.  

Trigeminal trophic syndrome classically is characterized by a triad of cutaneous anesthesia, paresthesia and/or pain, and ulceration secondary to pathology of trigeminal nerve sensory branches. Ulceration arises primarily through excoriation in response to paresthetic pruritus or pain. The differential diagnosis for TTS includes ulcerating cutaneous neoplasms (eg, basal cell carcinoma); mycobacterial, fungal, and viral infections (especially herpetic lesions); and cutaneous involvement of systemic vasculitides (eg, granulomatosis with polyangiitis).¹ Biopsy is necessary to exclude malignancy, and ulcers may be scraped for viral diagnosis. Complete blood cell count and serologic testing also may help to exclude immunodeficiencies or disorders. Apart from viral neuropathy, common etiologies of TTS include iatrogenic trigeminal injury (eg, in ablation treatment for trigeminal neuralgia) and stroke (eg, lateral medullary syndrome).  

The Diagnosis: Trigeminal Trophic Syndrome (Self-induced Trauma) 

The patient admitted to manipulation of the ala in response to persistent pain despite resolution of the herpes zoster, for which he recently had completed a course of oral acyclovir. A preliminary diagnosis of trigeminal trophic syndrome (TTS) was made, and a subsequent punch biopsy revealed no evidence of malignancy. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed, and he was instructed to avoid manipulation of the affected area. Treatment was initiated in consultation with pain specialists, and over the following 3 years our patient experienced a waxing and waning course of persistent pain complicated by new scalp and oral ulcers as well as alar impetigo. His condition eventually stabilized with tolerable pain on oral gabapentin and doxepin cream 5% applied up to 4 times daily. The alar lesion healed following sufficient abstinence from manipulation, leaving a crescent-shaped rim defect.  

Trigeminal trophic syndrome classically is characterized by a triad of cutaneous anesthesia, paresthesia and/or pain, and ulceration secondary to pathology of trigeminal nerve sensory branches. Ulceration arises primarily through excoriation in response to paresthetic pruritus or pain. The differential diagnosis for TTS includes ulcerating cutaneous neoplasms (eg, basal cell carcinoma); mycobacterial, fungal, and viral infections (especially herpetic lesions); and cutaneous involvement of systemic vasculitides (eg, granulomatosis with polyangiitis).¹ Biopsy is necessary to exclude malignancy, and ulcers may be scraped for viral diagnosis. Complete blood cell count and serologic testing also may help to exclude immunodeficiencies or disorders. Apart from viral neuropathy, common etiologies of TTS include iatrogenic trigeminal injury (eg, in ablation treatment for trigeminal neuralgia) and stroke (eg, lateral medullary syndrome).  

The Diagnosis: Trigeminal Trophic Syndrome (Self-induced Trauma) 

The patient admitted to manipulation of the ala in response to persistent pain despite resolution of the herpes zoster, for which he recently had completed a course of oral acyclovir. A preliminary diagnosis of trigeminal trophic syndrome (TTS) was made, and a subsequent punch biopsy revealed no evidence of malignancy. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed, and he was instructed to avoid manipulation of the affected area. Treatment was initiated in consultation with pain specialists, and over the following 3 years our patient experienced a waxing and waning course of persistent pain complicated by new scalp and oral ulcers as well as alar impetigo. His condition eventually stabilized with tolerable pain on oral gabapentin and doxepin cream 5% applied up to 4 times daily. The alar lesion healed following sufficient abstinence from manipulation, leaving a crescent-shaped rim defect.  

Trigeminal trophic syndrome classically is characterized by a triad of cutaneous anesthesia, paresthesia and/or pain, and ulceration secondary to pathology of trigeminal nerve sensory branches. Ulceration arises primarily through excoriation in response to paresthetic pruritus or pain. The differential diagnosis for TTS includes ulcerating cutaneous neoplasms (eg, basal cell carcinoma); mycobacterial, fungal, and viral infections (especially herpetic lesions); and cutaneous involvement of systemic vasculitides (eg, granulomatosis with polyangiitis).¹ Biopsy is necessary to exclude malignancy, and ulcers may be scraped for viral diagnosis. Complete blood cell count and serologic testing also may help to exclude immunodeficiencies or disorders. Apart from viral neuropathy, common etiologies of TTS include iatrogenic trigeminal injury (eg, in ablation treatment for trigeminal neuralgia) and stroke (eg, lateral medullary syndrome).  

This year, Family Practice News is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Look for articles, commentaries, and other special features highlighting the evolution of the specialty in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.

We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.

Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].

Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!

[email protected]

This year, Family Practice News is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Look for articles, commentaries, and other special features highlighting the evolution of the specialty in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.

We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.

Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].

Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!

[email protected]

This year, Family Practice News is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Look for articles, commentaries, and other special features highlighting the evolution of the specialty in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.

We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.

Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].

Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!

[email protected]

With the shootings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and other Black citizens setting off protests and unrest, race was at the forefront of national conversation in the United States – along with COVID-19 – over the past year.

“We’ve heard things like, ‘We’re in a post-racial society,’ but I think 2020 in particular has emphasized that we’re not,” said Gregory Johnson, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of hospital medicine at Sound Physicians, a national physician practice. “Racism is very present in our lives, it’s very present in our world, and it is absolutely present in medicine.”

Yes, race is still an issue in the U.S. as we head into 2021, though this may have come as something of a surprise to people who do not live with racism daily.

“If you have a brain, you have bias, and that bias will likely apply to race as well,” Dr. Johnson said. “When we’re talking about institutional racism, the educational system and the media have led us to create presumptions and prejudices that we don’t necessarily recognize off the top because they’ve just been a part of the fabric of who we are as we’ve grown up.”

The term “racism” has extremely negative connotations because there’s character judgment attached to it, but to say someone is racist or racially insensitive does not equate them with being a Klansman, said Dr. Johnson. “I think we as people have to acknowledge that, yes, it’s possible for me to be racist and I might not be 100% aware of it. It’s being open to the possibility – or rather probability – that you are and then taking steps to figure out how you can address that, so you can limit it. And that requires constant self-evaluation and work,” he said.
 

Racism in the medical environment

Institutional racism is evident before students are even accepted into medical school, said Areeba Kara, MD, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and a hospitalist at IU Health Physicians.

Mean MCAT scores are lower for applicants traditionally underrepresented in medicine (UIM) compared to the scores of well-represented groups.¹ “Lower scores are associated with lower acceptance rates into medical school,” Dr. Kara said. “These differences reflect unequal educational opportunities rooted in centuries of legal discrimination.”

Racism is apparent in both the hidden medical education curriculum and in lessons implicitly taught to students, said Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate program director of the pediatric residency training program at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.

“These lessons inform the way in which we as physicians see our patients, each other, and how we practice,” she said. “We reinforce race-based medicine and shape clinical decision making through flawed guidelines and practices, which exacerbates health inequities. We teach that race – rather than racism – is a risk factor for poor health outcomes. Our students and trainees watch as we assume the worst of our patients from marginalized communities of color.”

Terms describing patients of color, such as “difficult,” “non-compliant,” or “frequent flyer” are thrown around and sometimes, instead of finding out why, “we view these states of being as static, root causes for poor outcomes rather than symptoms of social conditions and obstacles that impact overall health and wellbeing,” Dr. Unaka said.

Leadership opportunities

Though hospital medicine is a growing field, Dr. Kara noted that the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report found that only 5.5% of hospital medical group leaders were Black, and just 2.2% were Hispanic/Latino.² “I think these numbers speak for themselves,” she said.

Dr. Unaka said that the lack of UIM hospitalists and physician leaders creates fewer opportunities for “race-concordant mentorship relationships.” It also forces UIM physicians to shoulder more responsibilities – often obligations that do little to help them move forward in their careers – all in the name of diversity. And when UIM physicians are given leadership opportunities, Dr. Unaka said they are often unsure as to whether their appointments are genuine or just a hollow gesture made for the sake of diversity.

Dr. Johnson pointed out that Black and Latinx populations primarily get their care from hospital-based specialties, yet this is not reflected in the number of UIM practitioners in leadership roles. He said race and ethnicity, as well as gender, need to be factors when individuals are evaluated for leadership opportunities – for the individual’s sake, as well as for the community he or she is serving.

“When we can evaluate for unconscious bias and factor in that diverse groups tend to have better outcomes, whether it’s business or clinical outcomes, it’s one of the opportunities that we collectively have in the specialty to improve what we’re delivering for hospitals and, more importantly, for patients,” he said.
 

Relationships with colleagues and patients

Racism creeps into interactions and relationships with others as well, whether it’s between clinicians, clinician to patient, or patient to clinician. Sometimes it’s blatant; often it’s subtle.

A common, recurring example Dr. Unaka has experienced in the clinician to clinician relationship is being confused for other Black physicians, making her feel invisible. “The everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults from colleagues are frequent and contribute to feelings of exclusion, isolation, and exhaustion,” she said. Despite this, she is still expected to “address microaggressions and other forms of interpersonal racism and find ways to move through professional spaces in spite of the trauma, fear, and stress associated with my reality and lived experiences.” She said that clinicians who remain silent on the topic of racism participate in the violence and contribute to the disillusionment of UIM physicians.

Dr. Kara said that the discrimination from the health care team is the hardest to deal with. In the clinician to clinician relationship, there is a sense among UIM physicians that they’re being watched more closely and “have to prove themselves at every single turn.” Unfortunately, this comes from the environment, which tends to be adversarial rather than supportive and nurturing, she said.

“There are lots of opportunities for racism or racial insensitivity to crop up from clinician to clinician,” said Dr. Johnson. When he started his career as a physician after his training, Dr. Johnson was informed that his colleagues were watching him because they were not sure about his clinical skills. The fact that he was a former chief resident and board certified in two specialties did not seem to make any difference.

Patients refusing care from UIM physicians or expressing disapproval – both verbal and nonverbal – of such care, happens all too often. “It’s easier for me to excuse patients and their families as we often meet them on their worst days,” said Dr. Kara. Still, “understanding my oath to care for people and do no harm, but at the same time, recognizing that this is an individual that is rejecting my care without having any idea of who I am as a physician is frustrating,” Dr. Johnson acknowledged.

Then there’s the complex clinician to patient relationship, which research clearly shows contributes to health disparities.³ For one thing, the physician workforce does not reflect the patient population, Dr. Unaka said. “We cannot ignore the lack of race concordance between patients and clinicians, nor can the continued misplacement of blame for medical mistrust be at the feet of our patients,” she said.

Dr. Unaka feels that clinicians need to accept both that health inequities exist and that frontline physicians themselves contribute to the inequities. “Our diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are not immune to bias and are influenced by our deeply held beliefs about specific populations,” she said. “And the health care system that our patients navigate is no different than other systems, settings, and environments that are marred by racism in all its forms.”

Systemic racism greatly impacts patient care, said Dr. Kara. She pointed to several examples: Research showing that race concordance between patients and providers in an emergency department setting led to better pain control with fewer analgesics.⁴ The high maternal and infant mortality rates amongst Black women and children.⁵ Evidence of poorer outcomes in sepsis patients with limited English proficiency.⁶ “There are plenty more,” she said. “We need to be asking ourselves what we are going to do about it.”
 

Moving forward

That racial biases are steeped so thoroughly into our culture and consciousness means that moving beyond them is a continual, purposeful work in progress. But it is work that is critical for everyone, and certainly necessary for those who care for their fellow human beings when they are in a vulnerable state.

Health care systems need to move toward equity – giving everyone what they need to thrive – rather than focusing on equality – giving everyone the same thing, said Jenny Baenziger, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and associate director of education at IU Center for Global Health. “We know that minoritized patients are going to need more attention, more advocacy, more sensitivity, and more creative solutions in order to help them achieve health in a world that is often stacked against them,” she said.

References

1. Lucey CR, Saguil, A. The Consequences of Structural Racism on MCAT Scores and Medical School Admissions: The Past Is Prologue. Acad Med. 2020 Mar;95(3):351-356. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002939.

2. Flores L. Increasing racial diversity in hospital medicine’s leadership ranks. The Hospitalist. 2020 Oct 21.

3. Smedley BD, et al, eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.

4. Heins A, et al. Physician Race/Ethnicity Predicts Successful Emergency Department Analgesia. J Pain. 2010 July;11(7):692-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.10.017.

5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serves, Office of Minority Health. Infant Mortality and African Americans. 2019 Nov 8. minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=23.

6. Jacobs ZG, et al. The Association between Limited English Proficiency and Sepsis Mortality. J Hosp Med. 2020;3;140-146. Published Online First 2019 Nov 20. doi:10.12788/jhm.3334.

7. Finucane TE. Mention of a Patient’s “Race” in Clinical Presentations. Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(6):423-427. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.6.ecas1-1406.

With the shootings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and other Black citizens setting off protests and unrest, race was at the forefront of national conversation in the United States – along with COVID-19 – over the past year.

“We’ve heard things like, ‘We’re in a post-racial society,’ but I think 2020 in particular has emphasized that we’re not,” said Gregory Johnson, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of hospital medicine at Sound Physicians, a national physician practice. “Racism is very present in our lives, it’s very present in our world, and it is absolutely present in medicine.”

Yes, race is still an issue in the U.S. as we head into 2021, though this may have come as something of a surprise to people who do not live with racism daily.

“If you have a brain, you have bias, and that bias will likely apply to race as well,” Dr. Johnson said. “When we’re talking about institutional racism, the educational system and the media have led us to create presumptions and prejudices that we don’t necessarily recognize off the top because they’ve just been a part of the fabric of who we are as we’ve grown up.”

The term “racism” has extremely negative connotations because there’s character judgment attached to it, but to say someone is racist or racially insensitive does not equate them with being a Klansman, said Dr. Johnson. “I think we as people have to acknowledge that, yes, it’s possible for me to be racist and I might not be 100% aware of it. It’s being open to the possibility – or rather probability – that you are and then taking steps to figure out how you can address that, so you can limit it. And that requires constant self-evaluation and work,” he said.
 

Racism in the medical environment

Institutional racism is evident before students are even accepted into medical school, said Areeba Kara, MD, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and a hospitalist at IU Health Physicians.

Mean MCAT scores are lower for applicants traditionally underrepresented in medicine (UIM) compared to the scores of well-represented groups.¹ “Lower scores are associated with lower acceptance rates into medical school,” Dr. Kara said. “These differences reflect unequal educational opportunities rooted in centuries of legal discrimination.”

Racism is apparent in both the hidden medical education curriculum and in lessons implicitly taught to students, said Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate program director of the pediatric residency training program at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.

“These lessons inform the way in which we as physicians see our patients, each other, and how we practice,” she said. “We reinforce race-based medicine and shape clinical decision making through flawed guidelines and practices, which exacerbates health inequities. We teach that race – rather than racism – is a risk factor for poor health outcomes. Our students and trainees watch as we assume the worst of our patients from marginalized communities of color.”

Terms describing patients of color, such as “difficult,” “non-compliant,” or “frequent flyer” are thrown around and sometimes, instead of finding out why, “we view these states of being as static, root causes for poor outcomes rather than symptoms of social conditions and obstacles that impact overall health and wellbeing,” Dr. Unaka said.

Leadership opportunities

Though hospital medicine is a growing field, Dr. Kara noted that the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report found that only 5.5% of hospital medical group leaders were Black, and just 2.2% were Hispanic/Latino.² “I think these numbers speak for themselves,” she said.

Dr. Unaka said that the lack of UIM hospitalists and physician leaders creates fewer opportunities for “race-concordant mentorship relationships.” It also forces UIM physicians to shoulder more responsibilities – often obligations that do little to help them move forward in their careers – all in the name of diversity. And when UIM physicians are given leadership opportunities, Dr. Unaka said they are often unsure as to whether their appointments are genuine or just a hollow gesture made for the sake of diversity.

Dr. Johnson pointed out that Black and Latinx populations primarily get their care from hospital-based specialties, yet this is not reflected in the number of UIM practitioners in leadership roles. He said race and ethnicity, as well as gender, need to be factors when individuals are evaluated for leadership opportunities – for the individual’s sake, as well as for the community he or she is serving.

“When we can evaluate for unconscious bias and factor in that diverse groups tend to have better outcomes, whether it’s business or clinical outcomes, it’s one of the opportunities that we collectively have in the specialty to improve what we’re delivering for hospitals and, more importantly, for patients,” he said.
 

Relationships with colleagues and patients

Racism creeps into interactions and relationships with others as well, whether it’s between clinicians, clinician to patient, or patient to clinician. Sometimes it’s blatant; often it’s subtle.

A common, recurring example Dr. Unaka has experienced in the clinician to clinician relationship is being confused for other Black physicians, making her feel invisible. “The everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults from colleagues are frequent and contribute to feelings of exclusion, isolation, and exhaustion,” she said. Despite this, she is still expected to “address microaggressions and other forms of interpersonal racism and find ways to move through professional spaces in spite of the trauma, fear, and stress associated with my reality and lived experiences.” She said that clinicians who remain silent on the topic of racism participate in the violence and contribute to the disillusionment of UIM physicians.

Dr. Kara said that the discrimination from the health care team is the hardest to deal with. In the clinician to clinician relationship, there is a sense among UIM physicians that they’re being watched more closely and “have to prove themselves at every single turn.” Unfortunately, this comes from the environment, which tends to be adversarial rather than supportive and nurturing, she said.

“There are lots of opportunities for racism or racial insensitivity to crop up from clinician to clinician,” said Dr. Johnson. When he started his career as a physician after his training, Dr. Johnson was informed that his colleagues were watching him because they were not sure about his clinical skills. The fact that he was a former chief resident and board certified in two specialties did not seem to make any difference.

Patients refusing care from UIM physicians or expressing disapproval – both verbal and nonverbal – of such care, happens all too often. “It’s easier for me to excuse patients and their families as we often meet them on their worst days,” said Dr. Kara. Still, “understanding my oath to care for people and do no harm, but at the same time, recognizing that this is an individual that is rejecting my care without having any idea of who I am as a physician is frustrating,” Dr. Johnson acknowledged.

Then there’s the complex clinician to patient relationship, which research clearly shows contributes to health disparities.³ For one thing, the physician workforce does not reflect the patient population, Dr. Unaka said. “We cannot ignore the lack of race concordance between patients and clinicians, nor can the continued misplacement of blame for medical mistrust be at the feet of our patients,” she said.

Dr. Unaka feels that clinicians need to accept both that health inequities exist and that frontline physicians themselves contribute to the inequities. “Our diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are not immune to bias and are influenced by our deeply held beliefs about specific populations,” she said. “And the health care system that our patients navigate is no different than other systems, settings, and environments that are marred by racism in all its forms.”

Systemic racism greatly impacts patient care, said Dr. Kara. She pointed to several examples: Research showing that race concordance between patients and providers in an emergency department setting led to better pain control with fewer analgesics.⁴ The high maternal and infant mortality rates amongst Black women and children.⁵ Evidence of poorer outcomes in sepsis patients with limited English proficiency.⁶ “There are plenty more,” she said. “We need to be asking ourselves what we are going to do about it.”
 

Moving forward

That racial biases are steeped so thoroughly into our culture and consciousness means that moving beyond them is a continual, purposeful work in progress. But it is work that is critical for everyone, and certainly necessary for those who care for their fellow human beings when they are in a vulnerable state.

Health care systems need to move toward equity – giving everyone what they need to thrive – rather than focusing on equality – giving everyone the same thing, said Jenny Baenziger, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and associate director of education at IU Center for Global Health. “We know that minoritized patients are going to need more attention, more advocacy, more sensitivity, and more creative solutions in order to help them achieve health in a world that is often stacked against them,” she said.

References

1. Lucey CR, Saguil, A. The Consequences of Structural Racism on MCAT Scores and Medical School Admissions: The Past Is Prologue. Acad Med. 2020 Mar;95(3):351-356. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002939.

2. Flores L. Increasing racial diversity in hospital medicine’s leadership ranks. The Hospitalist. 2020 Oct 21.

3. Smedley BD, et al, eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.

4. Heins A, et al. Physician Race/Ethnicity Predicts Successful Emergency Department Analgesia. J Pain. 2010 July;11(7):692-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.10.017.

5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serves, Office of Minority Health. Infant Mortality and African Americans. 2019 Nov 8. minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=23.

6. Jacobs ZG, et al. The Association between Limited English Proficiency and Sepsis Mortality. J Hosp Med. 2020;3;140-146. Published Online First 2019 Nov 20. doi:10.12788/jhm.3334.

7. Finucane TE. Mention of a Patient’s “Race” in Clinical Presentations. Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(6):423-427. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.6.ecas1-1406.

With the shootings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and other Black citizens setting off protests and unrest, race was at the forefront of national conversation in the United States – along with COVID-19 – over the past year.

“We’ve heard things like, ‘We’re in a post-racial society,’ but I think 2020 in particular has emphasized that we’re not,” said Gregory Johnson, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer of hospital medicine at Sound Physicians, a national physician practice. “Racism is very present in our lives, it’s very present in our world, and it is absolutely present in medicine.”

Yes, race is still an issue in the U.S. as we head into 2021, though this may have come as something of a surprise to people who do not live with racism daily.

“If you have a brain, you have bias, and that bias will likely apply to race as well,” Dr. Johnson said. “When we’re talking about institutional racism, the educational system and the media have led us to create presumptions and prejudices that we don’t necessarily recognize off the top because they’ve just been a part of the fabric of who we are as we’ve grown up.”

The term “racism” has extremely negative connotations because there’s character judgment attached to it, but to say someone is racist or racially insensitive does not equate them with being a Klansman, said Dr. Johnson. “I think we as people have to acknowledge that, yes, it’s possible for me to be racist and I might not be 100% aware of it. It’s being open to the possibility – or rather probability – that you are and then taking steps to figure out how you can address that, so you can limit it. And that requires constant self-evaluation and work,” he said.
 

Racism in the medical environment

Institutional racism is evident before students are even accepted into medical school, said Areeba Kara, MD, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and a hospitalist at IU Health Physicians.

Mean MCAT scores are lower for applicants traditionally underrepresented in medicine (UIM) compared to the scores of well-represented groups.¹ “Lower scores are associated with lower acceptance rates into medical school,” Dr. Kara said. “These differences reflect unequal educational opportunities rooted in centuries of legal discrimination.”

Racism is apparent in both the hidden medical education curriculum and in lessons implicitly taught to students, said Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate program director of the pediatric residency training program at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.

“These lessons inform the way in which we as physicians see our patients, each other, and how we practice,” she said. “We reinforce race-based medicine and shape clinical decision making through flawed guidelines and practices, which exacerbates health inequities. We teach that race – rather than racism – is a risk factor for poor health outcomes. Our students and trainees watch as we assume the worst of our patients from marginalized communities of color.”

Terms describing patients of color, such as “difficult,” “non-compliant,” or “frequent flyer” are thrown around and sometimes, instead of finding out why, “we view these states of being as static, root causes for poor outcomes rather than symptoms of social conditions and obstacles that impact overall health and wellbeing,” Dr. Unaka said.

Leadership opportunities

Though hospital medicine is a growing field, Dr. Kara noted that the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine Report found that only 5.5% of hospital medical group leaders were Black, and just 2.2% were Hispanic/Latino.² “I think these numbers speak for themselves,” she said.

Dr. Unaka said that the lack of UIM hospitalists and physician leaders creates fewer opportunities for “race-concordant mentorship relationships.” It also forces UIM physicians to shoulder more responsibilities – often obligations that do little to help them move forward in their careers – all in the name of diversity. And when UIM physicians are given leadership opportunities, Dr. Unaka said they are often unsure as to whether their appointments are genuine or just a hollow gesture made for the sake of diversity.

Dr. Johnson pointed out that Black and Latinx populations primarily get their care from hospital-based specialties, yet this is not reflected in the number of UIM practitioners in leadership roles. He said race and ethnicity, as well as gender, need to be factors when individuals are evaluated for leadership opportunities – for the individual’s sake, as well as for the community he or she is serving.

“When we can evaluate for unconscious bias and factor in that diverse groups tend to have better outcomes, whether it’s business or clinical outcomes, it’s one of the opportunities that we collectively have in the specialty to improve what we’re delivering for hospitals and, more importantly, for patients,” he said.
 

Relationships with colleagues and patients

Racism creeps into interactions and relationships with others as well, whether it’s between clinicians, clinician to patient, or patient to clinician. Sometimes it’s blatant; often it’s subtle.

A common, recurring example Dr. Unaka has experienced in the clinician to clinician relationship is being confused for other Black physicians, making her feel invisible. “The everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults from colleagues are frequent and contribute to feelings of exclusion, isolation, and exhaustion,” she said. Despite this, she is still expected to “address microaggressions and other forms of interpersonal racism and find ways to move through professional spaces in spite of the trauma, fear, and stress associated with my reality and lived experiences.” She said that clinicians who remain silent on the topic of racism participate in the violence and contribute to the disillusionment of UIM physicians.

Dr. Kara said that the discrimination from the health care team is the hardest to deal with. In the clinician to clinician relationship, there is a sense among UIM physicians that they’re being watched more closely and “have to prove themselves at every single turn.” Unfortunately, this comes from the environment, which tends to be adversarial rather than supportive and nurturing, she said.

“There are lots of opportunities for racism or racial insensitivity to crop up from clinician to clinician,” said Dr. Johnson. When he started his career as a physician after his training, Dr. Johnson was informed that his colleagues were watching him because they were not sure about his clinical skills. The fact that he was a former chief resident and board certified in two specialties did not seem to make any difference.

Patients refusing care from UIM physicians or expressing disapproval – both verbal and nonverbal – of such care, happens all too often. “It’s easier for me to excuse patients and their families as we often meet them on their worst days,” said Dr. Kara. Still, “understanding my oath to care for people and do no harm, but at the same time, recognizing that this is an individual that is rejecting my care without having any idea of who I am as a physician is frustrating,” Dr. Johnson acknowledged.

Then there’s the complex clinician to patient relationship, which research clearly shows contributes to health disparities.³ For one thing, the physician workforce does not reflect the patient population, Dr. Unaka said. “We cannot ignore the lack of race concordance between patients and clinicians, nor can the continued misplacement of blame for medical mistrust be at the feet of our patients,” she said.

Dr. Unaka feels that clinicians need to accept both that health inequities exist and that frontline physicians themselves contribute to the inequities. “Our diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are not immune to bias and are influenced by our deeply held beliefs about specific populations,” she said. “And the health care system that our patients navigate is no different than other systems, settings, and environments that are marred by racism in all its forms.”

Systemic racism greatly impacts patient care, said Dr. Kara. She pointed to several examples: Research showing that race concordance between patients and providers in an emergency department setting led to better pain control with fewer analgesics.⁴ The high maternal and infant mortality rates amongst Black women and children.⁵ Evidence of poorer outcomes in sepsis patients with limited English proficiency.⁶ “There are plenty more,” she said. “We need to be asking ourselves what we are going to do about it.”
 

Moving forward

That racial biases are steeped so thoroughly into our culture and consciousness means that moving beyond them is a continual, purposeful work in progress. But it is work that is critical for everyone, and certainly necessary for those who care for their fellow human beings when they are in a vulnerable state.

Health care systems need to move toward equity – giving everyone what they need to thrive – rather than focusing on equality – giving everyone the same thing, said Jenny Baenziger, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine and pediatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and associate director of education at IU Center for Global Health. “We know that minoritized patients are going to need more attention, more advocacy, more sensitivity, and more creative solutions in order to help them achieve health in a world that is often stacked against them,” she said.

References

1. Lucey CR, Saguil, A. The Consequences of Structural Racism on MCAT Scores and Medical School Admissions: The Past Is Prologue. Acad Med. 2020 Mar;95(3):351-356. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002939.

2. Flores L. Increasing racial diversity in hospital medicine’s leadership ranks. The Hospitalist. 2020 Oct 21.

3. Smedley BD, et al, eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Institute of Medicine Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.

4. Heins A, et al. Physician Race/Ethnicity Predicts Successful Emergency Department Analgesia. J Pain. 2010 July;11(7):692-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.10.017.

5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serves, Office of Minority Health. Infant Mortality and African Americans. 2019 Nov 8. minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=23.

6. Jacobs ZG, et al. The Association between Limited English Proficiency and Sepsis Mortality. J Hosp Med. 2020;3;140-146. Published Online First 2019 Nov 20. doi:10.12788/jhm.3334.

7. Finucane TE. Mention of a Patient’s “Race” in Clinical Presentations. Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(6):423-427. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.6.ecas1-1406.

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

The practice of medical students giving unconsented pelvic exams to women patients under anesthesia seems to be continuing, although recent new laws aim to change the situation.

“When I was doing ob.gyn. as a med student, the attending would have me do a pelvic right after the patient was under and before we started surgery,” said one participant in an online forum. “We didn’t exactly get permission but it was for teaching purposes.”

Yet others don’t see what the commotion is about. “There are a hundred things that are done during a surgery that don’t require your specific consent (some of them much more ‘humiliating’ than a pelvic exam). ... There’s not really much left to be shy about during a gyn/rectal/prostate surgery, let me put it that way,” one doctor wrote.

However, many physicians are adamantly opposed to the practice, and laws intended to stop or limit it are being enacted throughout the nation.
 

Renewed concerns have prompted new state laws

A few states have required consent for pelvic exams for many years, beginning with California in 2003. But up until 2019, providing pelvic exams without informed consent was illegal in only six states.

Continuing reports of unauthorized pelvic exams indicate that the practice has not disappeared. University of Michigan professor Maya M. Hammoud, MD, past president of the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and many others attribute renewed interest in the issue to a 2018 article in the journal Bioethics by Phoebe Friesen, a medical ethicist at McGill University, Montreal, that laid out the ethical arguments against the practice.

Starting in 2019, an outpouring of new state bills have been introduced, and nine more states have passed laws. In addition, 14 other states considered similar bills but did not pass them, in some cases because teaching institutions argued that they were already dealing with the issue. This happened in Connecticut and Massachusetts, after representatives of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., met with legislators.

Laws against the practice have been passed by 15 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, and New York. Some teaching institutions have recently been clamping down on the practice, while many teaching physicians insist that at this point, it has all but ended.
 

A practice that may still continue

For many years, ethicists, women’s rights groups, state legislators, and organized medicine have been trying to eliminate the practice of unauthorized pelvic exams by medical students. Several key medical groups have come out against it, including the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Fifteen years ago, studies found a substantial number of cases, but my sense is that most of that has stopped,” said Dr. Hammoud. 

Yet despite these changes, there are some disturbing signs that the practice persists.

“I don’t have data, but anecdotally I see it still going on,” said Peter Ubel, MD, a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was involved in one of those early studies. “Every so often when I’m making a speech, a medical student tells me about performing a pelvic exam without getting permission.

“Perhaps in some cases the attending [physician] did get permission and didn’t tell the medical student, but that would also be a problem,” Dr. Ubel said. “The medical student should be informed that permission was given. This helps them be sensitive to the need to get consent.”

In a 2019 survey of medical students, 92% said they performed a pelvic exam on an anesthetized female patient, and of those, 61% did so without explicit patient consent.

The survey – involving 101 medical students at seven U.S. medical schools – also found that 11% of the medical students said they were extremely uncomfortable with the practice. But nearly one-third of the medical students said that opting out might jeopardize their grades and future careers.

“I tried to opt out once from doing a pelvic exam when I hadn’t met the patient beforehand,” one of them wrote. “The resident told me no.”
 

Some physicians defend the practice

Why do many medical students and doctors think that getting consent for pelvic exams is not necessary?

Some argue that patients implicitly give consent when they walk through the doors of a teaching hospital. “Sorry, but you inherently agree to that when you’re seen in an academic teaching hospital,” wrote one participant in a Student Doctor Network forum. “You agree to have residents and medical students participate in your care, not just an attending. If you just want an attending, then you are free to go to a nonteaching hospital. That’s the deal.”

Others argued that since the anesthetized patient couldn’t feel what was going on, it shouldn’t matter. “Things like pelvic exams, rectal exams, or even heroic trauma surgery occur for training purposes when there is no memory, no sensation and no harm to be done [and] society gains a better practitioner of the art of medicine,” a physician in Columbus, Ohio, wrote on Quora, an online forum.

Some doctors argue that they don’t ask for specific consent when they touch a variety of other body parts, and pelvic exams should be no different. Pelvic exams are needed before surgery of the pelvic area, but they have also been given to women undergoing surgery in a different part of the body.

In 2019 a woman told Deseret News in Utah that she had been recovering from stomach surgery when a resident physician mentioned something she had noticed “when we looked at your cervix.” When she asked why the physician had examined her cervix to prepare for stomach surgery, “no one could give her a good answer.”
 

A ‘positive goal’ doesn’t make it okay

What is missing in many defenses of the practice is any recognition that genitals are the most intimate part of the body, and that a patient’s desire for privacy ought to come first. In a survey of women undergoing gynecologic surgery, 72% expected to be asked for consent before medical students undertook pelvic examinations under anesthesia.

Overruling patients’ concerns about their own privacy is unethical, said Eli Y. Adashi, MD, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Adashi said the principle of patient autonomy in medical ethics directs that patients must be involved in decision-making about their care – even when caretakers are pursuing a positive goal, such as helping to educate future doctors.

“Conducting pelvic exams on unconscious women without their specific consent is simply untenable and never has been tenable, and it ought to be discontinued if it hasn’t been already,” says Dr. Adashi, who wrote an opinion piece on the issue for JAMA.

Furthermore, it has been shown that ignoring the need to get consent for pelvic exams makes physicians less concerned about getting patient consent in general. A study led by Dr. Ubel found that medical students who had completed an ob.gyn. clerkship thought getting patients’ consent was significantly less important than those who had not completed that clerkship.
 

Why give pelvic exams to anesthetized women?

Despite the controversy, a number of medical educators continue to direct medical students to perform pelvic exams on anesthetized women. Why is that?

“Pelvic exams are not easy to do,” Dr. Hammoud said. “Learners need to keep working on them; they have to do a lot of them in order to do them well.”

To teach pelvic exams, most medical schools provide standardized patients – paid volunteers who submit to exams and critique the medical student’s work afterwards – but these encounters are limited because of their cost, says Guy Benrubi, MD, professor and emeritus chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

He said teaching programs therefore need to supplement exams on standardized patients with exams on unpaid volunteers who provide consent. Programs prefer anesthetized patients, Dr. Benrubi said, because they are easier for novices to work on. “With patients under anesthesia, the muscles are relaxed and it’s easier for learners to detect organs. All the same, you need to get consent.”
 

Teaching institutions stiffen consent requirements

Faced with growing opposition to pelvic exams without consent, teaching institutions as well as gynecologic educators have recently been tightening their policies.

Dr. Hammoud said she has always informed patients orally about the possibility of medical students performing pelvic exams on them, but now some institutions, including her own, want a more involved process. The university recently began consent in writing for pelvic exams.

In addition, the university also now requires that medical students meet patients before performing pelvic exams and that teaching physicians explain the students’ involvement.

Dr. Hammoud said some institutions now require a separate consent form for pelvic exams, but the University of Michigan simply directs that the possibility of the patient getting a pelvic exam be part of the consent form.

This requirement, called “explicit consent,” was endorsed by APGO. It differs from having a separate consent form for pelvic exams, which would highlight the possibility of a pelvic exam, as many women’s rights activists are calling for.

Why not have a separate form? Dr. Hammoud is concerned that it would unnecessarily alarm patients. “When you point out a certain issue, you’re in effect saying to the patient that this is not normal,” she said, noting that, when asked for consent to do the exams, most women agree to it.
 

New wave of state laws prompted by renewed concerns

Dr. Hammoud thinks the laws are unnecessary. “These laws are excessive for the vast majority of physicians who practice ethically. The profession should come up with its own standards rather than having a plethora of laws.”

Several of the more recent laws have a broader scope than the original laws. The original laws simply state that medical students or physicians must get informed consent, but they did not stipulate how informed consent should be obtained. (The laws also typically prohibit pelvic exams when surgery will be in a different area of the body.)

The new laws often follow this format, but some go well beyond it. Some also apply to rectal exams (Maine and Maryland), to men as well as women (Utah and Maryland) requires separate consent (Utah), and require consent for all pelvic exams (Florida). 
 

The struggle over Florida’s law

The original Florida bill was drafted in 2019 by state Sen. Lauren Book, a Democrat who is a victims’ rights advocate working with women who have undergone sexual trauma. In written comments for this article, she says not getting consent for pelvic exams is still going on.

“This disturbing practice is commonplace at medical schools and teaching hospitals across the country – including several Florida universities, based on accounts from current and former medical students and faculty,” Sen. Book stated. “At best, these exams have been wrongful learning experiences for medical students or at worst, the equivalent of a sexual assault.”

Dr. Ubel took exception to linking the teaching activities to sexual assault. “I understand why many women would be horrified by this practice, but it’s not as bad as it seems,” he said. “There is nothing sexual or prurient about these exams, and they are motivated purely by a desire to teach people to be better doctors. That said, patients have the right to say, ‘I don’t want it done to me.’ ” 

In early 2020, Dr. Benrubi was part of a coalition of medical groups that was trying to influence Sen. Book’s bill as it went through the legislature. Sen. Book’s original bill was relatively mild, “but then, late in the process, it was changed into a more sweeping bill with some unclear language,” he said.

The final version was passed and signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, in June.

Dr. Benrubi said that a large number of state legislators, including Sen. Book, have been agreeable to fixing the bill. This was supposed to happen in a special session in the fall, but that never materialized, and so the fix will have to wait until the regular session in early 2021.

“The law should not apply to patients undergoing routine pelvic exams,” Dr. Benrubi said. “It should only apply to women patients under anesthesia.”

But while organized medicine wants to walk back the law, Dr. Book wants to expand it. “This upcoming session, I look forward to working with physicians to continue to hone this new law, and to work toward inclusion for males. Everyone has a right to consent.”

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

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

COVID-19 became a leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, particularly for people over age 35, according to a new report published in JAMA on Thursday.

Adults over age 45 were more likely to die from COVID-19 than car crashes, respiratory diseases, drug overdoses, and suicide. And those over age 55 faced even higher rates of dying because of the coronavirus.

“The current exponential increase in COVID-19 is reaching a calamitous scale in the U.S.,” the authors wrote. “Putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.”

Population health researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University put COVID-19 deaths into context by comparing this year’s numbers to the leading causes of death for March through October 2018, sorting by age.

By October 2020, COVID-19 had become the third leading cause of death overall for those between the ages of 45 and 84 years, following after heart disease and cancer. For those over age 85, COVID-19 was the second leading cause of death, surpassing cancer and following behind heart disease.

For people aged 35-44 years, COVID-19 surpassed car crashes and respiratory diseases and was slightly lower than suicide, heart disease, and cancer. For those under age 35, drug overdoses, suicide, and car crashes remained the leading causes of death.

Importantly, the authors wrote, death rates for the two leading causes – heart disease and cancer – are about 1,700 and 1,600 per day, respectively. COVID-19 deaths have surpassed these numbers individually throughout December and, on Wednesday, beat them combined. More than 3,400 deaths were reported, according to the COVID Tracking Project, marking an all-time high that continues to increase. Hospitalizations were also at a new high, with more than 113,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, and another 232,000 new cases were reported.

“With COVID-19 mortality rates now exceeding these thresholds, this infectious disease has become deadlier than heart disease and cancer,” the authors wrote. “Its lethality may increase further as transmission increases with holiday travel and gatherings and with the intensified indoor exposure that winter brings.”

The reported number of COVID-19 deaths is likely a 20% underestimate, they wrote, attributable to delays in reporting and an increase in non–COVID-19 deaths that were undetected and untreated because of pandemic-related disruptions. Since the coronavirus is communicable and spreads easily, COVID-19 deaths are particularly unique and worrying, they said.

“Individuals who die from homicide or cancer do not transmit the risk of morbidity and mortality to those nearby,” they wrote. “Every COVID-19 death signals the possibility of more deaths among close contacts.”

The fall surge in cases and deaths is widespread nationally, as compared to the spring, with hot spots on both coasts and in rural areas, according to an accompanying editorial in JAMA from public health researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. People of color have faced twice the death rate as well, with one in 875 Black people and one in 925 Indigenous people dying from COVID-19, as compared with one in 1,625 White people.

“The year 2020 ends with COVID-19 massively surging, as it was in the spring, to be the leading cause of death,” they wrote. “The accelerating numbers of deaths fall far short of fully capturing each devastating human story: Every death represents untold loss for countless families.”

Vaccines offer hope, they said, but won’t prevent the upcoming increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths this winter. In 2021, containing the pandemic will require national coordination, resources to help overwhelmed health care workers, new support for state and local public health officials, a stimulus package for schools and businesses, and financial aid for people on the brink of eviction. The country needs federal coordination of testing, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, travel precautions, and a face mask mandate, they wrote.

“Ending this crisis will require not only further advances in treatment but also unprecedented commitment to all aspects of prevention, vaccination, and public health,” they wrote. “Only by doing so can future years see this illness revert back to the unfamiliar and unknown condition it once was.”

For the latest clinical guidance, education, research and physician resources about coronavirus, visit the AGA COVID-19 Resource Center at www.gastro.org/COVID.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Happy New Year! We all are counting on 2021 to be much different and better than 2020. As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.

I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.

I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.

Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.

Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Happy New Year! We all are counting on 2021 to be much different and better than 2020. As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.

I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.

I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.

Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.

Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Happy New Year! We all are counting on 2021 to be much different and better than 2020. As politics and politicians enhance divisiveness in our country, science and scientists will save us. The power of collective science, careful data analysis, and cautious interpretation has never been more evident than during this pandemic. Unfortunately, we still are learning the most effective means of communicating scientific knowledge where development is iterative and rarely definitive in the early stages of hypothesis testing. Once again, we see the destructive power and effectiveness of the techniques detailed in The Merchants of Doubt.

I choose to focus on successes of scientists and our care delivery workforce. In a mere 11 months, researchers created a new vaccine methodology, tested its safety and efficacy against COVID-19, and provided it to experts building the logistic infrastructure to vaccinate billions of people. Simultaneously, thousands of health care workers risked their lives in a daily battle against Coronavirus and saved countless lives. This is why we became scientists and providers.

I had difficulty choosing page one articles this month because of the wealth of material. On page one, we read about the most dramatic changes to Medicare E/M documentation in the last 30 years (resulting in an estimated 4% decrease in overall GI reimbursements). Another article reports on real reductions in liver-related deaths in states that expanded Medicaid coverage, once again demonstrating that we save lives if people have access to health care. The third article on page one discusses seronegative enteropathy – a difficult diagnosis but one with emerging answers.

Elsewhere in GI and Hepatology News, read about best practices to care for elderly IBD patients, EUS interventional advances, and interesting information that may lead to more targeted obesity therapies.

Articles highlighted above and others in this month’s issue show us that scientific inquiry, research and solution-finding is alive and well.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief