Hematology is in the Brodsky family’s blood

Article Type
Changed

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

Courtesy Dr. Robert A. Brodsky
Hematology fellow Dr. Max Brodsky (left) and Dr. Robert A. Brodsky, ASH president and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins, flank a painting of the late Dr. Isadore Brodsky. 

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

Courtesy Dr. Robert A. Brodsky
Hematology fellow Dr. Max Brodsky (left) and Dr. Robert A. Brodsky, ASH president and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins, flank a painting of the late Dr. Isadore Brodsky. 

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Talk about bloodlines: In the Brodsky family, the field of hematology tied father to son. Now a grandson is heading into the “family business.” This extraordinary legacy ties the late Isadore Brodsky, a pioneering hematologist, to his son Robert A. Brodsky, current president of the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and grandson Max Brodsky, now a second-year hematology fellow.

In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.

Courtesy Dr. Robert A. Brodsky
Hematology fellow Dr. Max Brodsky (left) and Dr. Robert A. Brodsky, ASH president and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins, flank a painting of the late Dr. Isadore Brodsky. 

Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:

Q: What drew your dad into medicine?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.

He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.

Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.

Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.

Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.

Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?

A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.

Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.

Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.

[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]

Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?

Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.

Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.

In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.

Q: What drew you to hematology?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.

Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?

Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.

Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?

Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.

Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?

Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better.  Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.

*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM ASH 2023

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

‘Hidden hearing loss’ may cause tinnitus: Study

Article Type
Changed

Scientists know that tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, affects 10% of adults worldwide. But they’re not exactly sure what causes the condition.

The traditional belief is that tinnitus happens in people who had already lost hearing. But some people who have tinnitus are still able to perform well on standard hearing tests, according to researchers at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. That happens because the tests don’t pick up auditory nerve loss, sometimes called “hidden hearing loss.” 

“Our work reconciles the idea that tinnitus may be triggered by a loss of auditory nerve, including in people with normal hearing,” Stéphane F. Maison, PhD, the lead author of a new study on tinnitus, said in a news release about the study.

Tinnitus is sometimes compared to phantom limb syndrome, in which people feel pain in limbs they no longer have. While the study published in Scientific Reports doesn’t refer to phantom limb syndrome, it does talk about “phantom sound.”

“In other words, the brain tries to compensate for the loss of hearing by increasing its activity, resulting in the perception of a phantom sound, tinnitus. Until recently though, this idea was disputed as some tinnitus sufferers have normal hearing tests,” the researchers explained in the news release. 

Annoyed by the ringing in your ears? What causes tinnitus, and how can you get the sound to buzz off?

The study included 294 adults — 201 who had never reported having tinnitus, 64 who had reported having temporary tinnitus, and 29 who had reported having constant tinnitus for 6 months or more. 

All 294 had performed normally on a pure tone test, in which subjects raise their hands when they hear beeps to measure the quietest sounds they can detect.

In a different kind of test, electrodes measured responses to clicking sounds in the inner ear, the auditory nerve, and the brain. The second test found reduced response in the auditory nerves and increased activity in the brainstem activity among those who had tinnitus.

Dr Maison, a principal investigator at Eaton-Peabody Laboratories at Mass Eye and Ear/Harvard Medical School, called the study “a first step toward our ultimate goal of silencing tinnitus.”

“Beyond the nuisance of having persistent ringing or other sounds in the ears, tinnitus symptoms are debilitating in many patients, causing sleep deprivation, social isolation, anxiety and depression, adversely affecting work performance, and reducing significantly their quality of life,” he said in the news release. “We won’t be able to cure tinnitus until we fully understand the mechanisms underlying its genesis.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Scientists know that tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, affects 10% of adults worldwide. But they’re not exactly sure what causes the condition.

The traditional belief is that tinnitus happens in people who had already lost hearing. But some people who have tinnitus are still able to perform well on standard hearing tests, according to researchers at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. That happens because the tests don’t pick up auditory nerve loss, sometimes called “hidden hearing loss.” 

“Our work reconciles the idea that tinnitus may be triggered by a loss of auditory nerve, including in people with normal hearing,” Stéphane F. Maison, PhD, the lead author of a new study on tinnitus, said in a news release about the study.

Tinnitus is sometimes compared to phantom limb syndrome, in which people feel pain in limbs they no longer have. While the study published in Scientific Reports doesn’t refer to phantom limb syndrome, it does talk about “phantom sound.”

“In other words, the brain tries to compensate for the loss of hearing by increasing its activity, resulting in the perception of a phantom sound, tinnitus. Until recently though, this idea was disputed as some tinnitus sufferers have normal hearing tests,” the researchers explained in the news release. 

Annoyed by the ringing in your ears? What causes tinnitus, and how can you get the sound to buzz off?

The study included 294 adults — 201 who had never reported having tinnitus, 64 who had reported having temporary tinnitus, and 29 who had reported having constant tinnitus for 6 months or more. 

All 294 had performed normally on a pure tone test, in which subjects raise their hands when they hear beeps to measure the quietest sounds they can detect.

In a different kind of test, electrodes measured responses to clicking sounds in the inner ear, the auditory nerve, and the brain. The second test found reduced response in the auditory nerves and increased activity in the brainstem activity among those who had tinnitus.

Dr Maison, a principal investigator at Eaton-Peabody Laboratories at Mass Eye and Ear/Harvard Medical School, called the study “a first step toward our ultimate goal of silencing tinnitus.”

“Beyond the nuisance of having persistent ringing or other sounds in the ears, tinnitus symptoms are debilitating in many patients, causing sleep deprivation, social isolation, anxiety and depression, adversely affecting work performance, and reducing significantly their quality of life,” he said in the news release. “We won’t be able to cure tinnitus until we fully understand the mechanisms underlying its genesis.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Scientists know that tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, affects 10% of adults worldwide. But they’re not exactly sure what causes the condition.

The traditional belief is that tinnitus happens in people who had already lost hearing. But some people who have tinnitus are still able to perform well on standard hearing tests, according to researchers at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. That happens because the tests don’t pick up auditory nerve loss, sometimes called “hidden hearing loss.” 

“Our work reconciles the idea that tinnitus may be triggered by a loss of auditory nerve, including in people with normal hearing,” Stéphane F. Maison, PhD, the lead author of a new study on tinnitus, said in a news release about the study.

Tinnitus is sometimes compared to phantom limb syndrome, in which people feel pain in limbs they no longer have. While the study published in Scientific Reports doesn’t refer to phantom limb syndrome, it does talk about “phantom sound.”

“In other words, the brain tries to compensate for the loss of hearing by increasing its activity, resulting in the perception of a phantom sound, tinnitus. Until recently though, this idea was disputed as some tinnitus sufferers have normal hearing tests,” the researchers explained in the news release. 

Annoyed by the ringing in your ears? What causes tinnitus, and how can you get the sound to buzz off?

The study included 294 adults — 201 who had never reported having tinnitus, 64 who had reported having temporary tinnitus, and 29 who had reported having constant tinnitus for 6 months or more. 

All 294 had performed normally on a pure tone test, in which subjects raise their hands when they hear beeps to measure the quietest sounds they can detect.

In a different kind of test, electrodes measured responses to clicking sounds in the inner ear, the auditory nerve, and the brain. The second test found reduced response in the auditory nerves and increased activity in the brainstem activity among those who had tinnitus.

Dr Maison, a principal investigator at Eaton-Peabody Laboratories at Mass Eye and Ear/Harvard Medical School, called the study “a first step toward our ultimate goal of silencing tinnitus.”

“Beyond the nuisance of having persistent ringing or other sounds in the ears, tinnitus symptoms are debilitating in many patients, causing sleep deprivation, social isolation, anxiety and depression, adversely affecting work performance, and reducing significantly their quality of life,” he said in the news release. “We won’t be able to cure tinnitus until we fully understand the mechanisms underlying its genesis.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

2023 AGA Innovation Conference on the Advances in Endosurgery

Article Type
Changed

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Gastroenterological Association Center for GI Innovation and Technology recently held its fifth annual Innovation Conference (formerly Consensus Conference) on the Advances in Endosurgery, November 10 – 11. It was organized and chaired by Amrita Sethi, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center—NYP and Sri Komanduri, MD, MS, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

The conference brought together gastroenterologists (GIs), surgeons, and industry partners to explore what further collaboration and clinical adoption is needed to advance endosurgical applications. Both GIs and surgeons welcomed potential collaboration especially in developing strategies to promote education and training initiatives, including defining what procedures and techniques are to be included in the endosurgery arena. Jeffrey Potkul, Medtronic Endoscopy, noted that this was a “great forum, format, and discussions — it will take novel approaches such as this conference and new collaboration models to ensure technology innovation in the endoluminal space can reach patients and empower improved outcomes in Gastroenterology.”

Dana Johnston
2023 AGA Innovation Conference: Advances in Endosurgery attendees.

Topics discussed included third space endoscopy, endobariatric and metabolic endoscopy, and endoscopy related to transluminal access. Exciting new developments in robotic endoscopy were also highlighted with an attempt to understand the value proposition of this innovation in the endoscopy space, as well as successes and failures of past efforts to help guide success going forward. Other issues raised were methods for device development including initiating research studies, how to navigate regulatory processes for Food and Drug Administration approval of new devices, and ongoing issues related to billing and reimbursement. There was consensus around the need for collaboration between all stakeholders to drive innovation and its adoption in the field of endosurgery. This meeting is one of the first of its kind to bring innovators across multiple disciplines together with the intention of moving the entire field of endosurgery forward and encouraging creative solutions.

We would like to thank the members of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology Committee and attendees who made this year’s conference a success. The conference was supported by independent grants from Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical Inc., Endo Tools Therapeutics, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, Intuitive Surgical, Olympus Corporation, and Medtronic.

Publications
Topics
Sections

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Gastroenterological Association Center for GI Innovation and Technology recently held its fifth annual Innovation Conference (formerly Consensus Conference) on the Advances in Endosurgery, November 10 – 11. It was organized and chaired by Amrita Sethi, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center—NYP and Sri Komanduri, MD, MS, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

The conference brought together gastroenterologists (GIs), surgeons, and industry partners to explore what further collaboration and clinical adoption is needed to advance endosurgical applications. Both GIs and surgeons welcomed potential collaboration especially in developing strategies to promote education and training initiatives, including defining what procedures and techniques are to be included in the endosurgery arena. Jeffrey Potkul, Medtronic Endoscopy, noted that this was a “great forum, format, and discussions — it will take novel approaches such as this conference and new collaboration models to ensure technology innovation in the endoluminal space can reach patients and empower improved outcomes in Gastroenterology.”

Dana Johnston
2023 AGA Innovation Conference: Advances in Endosurgery attendees.

Topics discussed included third space endoscopy, endobariatric and metabolic endoscopy, and endoscopy related to transluminal access. Exciting new developments in robotic endoscopy were also highlighted with an attempt to understand the value proposition of this innovation in the endoscopy space, as well as successes and failures of past efforts to help guide success going forward. Other issues raised were methods for device development including initiating research studies, how to navigate regulatory processes for Food and Drug Administration approval of new devices, and ongoing issues related to billing and reimbursement. There was consensus around the need for collaboration between all stakeholders to drive innovation and its adoption in the field of endosurgery. This meeting is one of the first of its kind to bring innovators across multiple disciplines together with the intention of moving the entire field of endosurgery forward and encouraging creative solutions.

We would like to thank the members of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology Committee and attendees who made this year’s conference a success. The conference was supported by independent grants from Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical Inc., Endo Tools Therapeutics, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, Intuitive Surgical, Olympus Corporation, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Gastroenterological Association Center for GI Innovation and Technology recently held its fifth annual Innovation Conference (formerly Consensus Conference) on the Advances in Endosurgery, November 10 – 11. It was organized and chaired by Amrita Sethi, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center—NYP and Sri Komanduri, MD, MS, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

The conference brought together gastroenterologists (GIs), surgeons, and industry partners to explore what further collaboration and clinical adoption is needed to advance endosurgical applications. Both GIs and surgeons welcomed potential collaboration especially in developing strategies to promote education and training initiatives, including defining what procedures and techniques are to be included in the endosurgery arena. Jeffrey Potkul, Medtronic Endoscopy, noted that this was a “great forum, format, and discussions — it will take novel approaches such as this conference and new collaboration models to ensure technology innovation in the endoluminal space can reach patients and empower improved outcomes in Gastroenterology.”

Dana Johnston
2023 AGA Innovation Conference: Advances in Endosurgery attendees.

Topics discussed included third space endoscopy, endobariatric and metabolic endoscopy, and endoscopy related to transluminal access. Exciting new developments in robotic endoscopy were also highlighted with an attempt to understand the value proposition of this innovation in the endoscopy space, as well as successes and failures of past efforts to help guide success going forward. Other issues raised were methods for device development including initiating research studies, how to navigate regulatory processes for Food and Drug Administration approval of new devices, and ongoing issues related to billing and reimbursement. There was consensus around the need for collaboration between all stakeholders to drive innovation and its adoption in the field of endosurgery. This meeting is one of the first of its kind to bring innovators across multiple disciplines together with the intention of moving the entire field of endosurgery forward and encouraging creative solutions.

We would like to thank the members of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology Committee and attendees who made this year’s conference a success. The conference was supported by independent grants from Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical Inc., Endo Tools Therapeutics, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, Intuitive Surgical, Olympus Corporation, and Medtronic.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

What gastroenterologists need to know about the 2024 Medicare payment rules

Article Type
Changed

The 2024 updates to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) and the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) final rules represent a mixed bag for gastroenterologists.

Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) Final Rule

Cuts to physician payments continue: The final calendar year (CY) 2024 MPFS conversion factor will be $32.7442, a cut of approximately 3.4% from CY 2023, unless Congress acts. The reduction is the result of several factors, including the statutory base payment update of 0 percent, the reduction in assistance provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (from 2.5% for 2023 to 1.25% for 2024), and budget neutrality adjustments of –2.18 percent resulting from CMS’ finalized policies.

New add-on code for complex care: CMS is finalizing complexity add-on code, G2211 (Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition or a complex condition), that it originally proposed in 2018 rulemaking. CMS noted that G2211 cannot be used with an office and outpatient E/M procedure reported with modifier –25. CMS further clarified that the add-on code “is not intended for use by a professional whose relationship with the patient is of a discrete, routine, or time-limited nature ...” CMS further stated, “The inherent complexity that this code (G2211) captures is not in the clinical condition itself ... but rather the cognitive load of the continued responsibility of being the focal point for all needed services for this patient.” For gastroenterologists, it is reasonable to assume G2211 could be reported for care of patients with complex, chronic conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), celiac disease, and/or chronic liver disease.

CMS to align split (or shared) visit policy with CPT rules: Originally, CMS proposed to again delay “through at least December 31, 2024” its planned implementation of defining the “substantive portion” of a split/shared visit as more than half of the total time. However, after the American Medical Association’s CPT Editorial Panel, the body responsible for maintaining the CPT code set, issued new guidelines for split (or shared) services CMS decided to finalize the following policy to align with those guidelines: “Substantive portion means more than half of the total time spent by the physician and nonphysician practitioner performing the split (or shared) visit, or a substantive part of the medical decision making except as otherwise provided in this paragraph. For critical care visits, substantive portion means more than half of the total time spent by the physician and nonphysician practitioner performing the split (or shared) visit.”

While the CPT guidance states, “If code selection is based on total time on the date of the encounter, the service is reported by the professional who spent the majority of the face-to-face or non-face-to-face time performing the service,” this direction does not appear in the finalized CMS language.

CMS has extended Telehealth flexibility provisions through Dec. 31, 2024:

  • Reporting of Home Address — CMS will continue to permit distant site practitioners to use their currently enrolled practice location instead of their home address when providing telehealth services from their home through CY 2024.
  • Place of Service (POS) for Medicare Telehealth Services — Beginning in CY 2024, claims billed with POS 10 (Telehealth Provided in Patient’s Home) will be paid at the non-facility rate, and claims billed with POS 02 (Telehealth Provided Other than in Patient’s Home) will be paid at the facility rate. CMS also clarified that modifier –95 should be used when the clinician is in the hospital and the patient is at home.
  • Direct Supervision with Virtual Presence — CMS will continue to define direct supervision to permit the presence and “immediate availability” of the supervising practitioner through real-time audio and visual interactive telecommunications through CY 2024.
  • Supervision of Residents in Teaching Settings — CMS will allow teaching physicians to have a virtual presence (to continue to include real-time audio and video observation by the teaching physician) in all teaching settings, but only in clinical instances when the service is furnished virtually, through CY 2024.
  • Telephone E/M Services — CMS will continue to pay for CPT codes for telephone assessment and management services (99441-99443) through CY 2024.

Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) Final Rule

Hospital and ASC payments will increase: Conversion factors will increase 3.1% to $87.38 for hospitals and $53.51 for ASCs that meet applicable quality reporting requirements.

Hospital payments for Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) increase: The GI societies successfully advocated for a 67% increase to the facility payment for POEM. To better align with the procedure’s cost, CMS will place CPT code 43497 for POEM into a higher-level Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) (5331 — Complex GI procedures) with a facility payment of $5,435.83.

Cuts to hospital payments for some Level 3 upper GI procedures: CMS has finalized moving the following GI CPT codes that had previously been assigned to APC 5303 (Level 3 Upper GI Procedures — $3,260.69) to APC 5302 (Level 2 Upper GI Procedures — $1,814.88) without explanation and against advice from AGA and the GI societies. This will result in payment cuts of 44% to hospitals.

  • 43252 (EGD, flexible transoral with optical microscopy)
  • 43263 (ERCP with pressure measurement, sphincter of Oddi)
  • 43275 (ERCP, remove foreign body/stent biliary/pancreatic duct)

GI Comprehensive APC complexity adjustments: Based on a cost and volume threshold, CMS sometimes makes payment adjustments for Comprehensive APCs when two procedures are performed together. In response to comments received, CMS is adding the following procedures to the list of code combinations eligible for an increased payment via the Complexity Adjustment.

  • CPT 43270 (EGD, ablate tumor polyp/lesion with dilation and wire)
  • CPT 43252 (EGD, flexible transoral with optical microscopy)

For more information, see 2024 the payment rules summary and payment tables at https://gastro.org/practice-resources/reimbursement.

The Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee members have no conflicts of interest.

Publications
Topics
Sections

The 2024 updates to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) and the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) final rules represent a mixed bag for gastroenterologists.

Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) Final Rule

Cuts to physician payments continue: The final calendar year (CY) 2024 MPFS conversion factor will be $32.7442, a cut of approximately 3.4% from CY 2023, unless Congress acts. The reduction is the result of several factors, including the statutory base payment update of 0 percent, the reduction in assistance provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (from 2.5% for 2023 to 1.25% for 2024), and budget neutrality adjustments of –2.18 percent resulting from CMS’ finalized policies.

New add-on code for complex care: CMS is finalizing complexity add-on code, G2211 (Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition or a complex condition), that it originally proposed in 2018 rulemaking. CMS noted that G2211 cannot be used with an office and outpatient E/M procedure reported with modifier –25. CMS further clarified that the add-on code “is not intended for use by a professional whose relationship with the patient is of a discrete, routine, or time-limited nature ...” CMS further stated, “The inherent complexity that this code (G2211) captures is not in the clinical condition itself ... but rather the cognitive load of the continued responsibility of being the focal point for all needed services for this patient.” For gastroenterologists, it is reasonable to assume G2211 could be reported for care of patients with complex, chronic conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), celiac disease, and/or chronic liver disease.

CMS to align split (or shared) visit policy with CPT rules: Originally, CMS proposed to again delay “through at least December 31, 2024” its planned implementation of defining the “substantive portion” of a split/shared visit as more than half of the total time. However, after the American Medical Association’s CPT Editorial Panel, the body responsible for maintaining the CPT code set, issued new guidelines for split (or shared) services CMS decided to finalize the following policy to align with those guidelines: “Substantive portion means more than half of the total time spent by the physician and nonphysician practitioner performing the split (or shared) visit, or a substantive part of the medical decision making except as otherwise provided in this paragraph. For critical care visits, substantive portion means more than half of the total time spent by the physician and nonphysician practitioner performing the split (or shared) visit.”

While the CPT guidance states, “If code selection is based on total time on the date of the encounter, the service is reported by the professional who spent the majority of the face-to-face or non-face-to-face time performing the service,” this direction does not appear in the finalized CMS language.

CMS has extended Telehealth flexibility provisions through Dec. 31, 2024:

  • Reporting of Home Address — CMS will continue to permit distant site practitioners to use their currently enrolled practice location instead of their home address when providing telehealth services from their home through CY 2024.
  • Place of Service (POS) for Medicare Telehealth Services — Beginning in CY 2024, claims billed with POS 10 (Telehealth Provided in Patient’s Home) will be paid at the non-facility rate, and claims billed with POS 02 (Telehealth Provided Other than in Patient’s Home) will be paid at the facility rate. CMS also clarified that modifier –95 should be used when the clinician is in the hospital and the patient is at home.
  • Direct Supervision with Virtual Presence — CMS will continue to define direct supervision to permit the presence and “immediate availability” of the supervising practitioner through real-time audio and visual interactive telecommunications through CY 2024.
  • Supervision of Residents in Teaching Settings — CMS will allow teaching physicians to have a virtual presence (to continue to include real-time audio and video observation by the teaching physician) in all teaching settings, but only in clinical instances when the service is furnished virtually, through CY 2024.
  • Telephone E/M Services — CMS will continue to pay for CPT codes for telephone assessment and management services (99441-99443) through CY 2024.

Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) Final Rule

Hospital and ASC payments will increase: Conversion factors will increase 3.1% to $87.38 for hospitals and $53.51 for ASCs that meet applicable quality reporting requirements.

Hospital payments for Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) increase: The GI societies successfully advocated for a 67% increase to the facility payment for POEM. To better align with the procedure’s cost, CMS will place CPT code 43497 for POEM into a higher-level Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) (5331 — Complex GI procedures) with a facility payment of $5,435.83.

Cuts to hospital payments for some Level 3 upper GI procedures: CMS has finalized moving the following GI CPT codes that had previously been assigned to APC 5303 (Level 3 Upper GI Procedures — $3,260.69) to APC 5302 (Level 2 Upper GI Procedures — $1,814.88) without explanation and against advice from AGA and the GI societies. This will result in payment cuts of 44% to hospitals.

  • 43252 (EGD, flexible transoral with optical microscopy)
  • 43263 (ERCP with pressure measurement, sphincter of Oddi)
  • 43275 (ERCP, remove foreign body/stent biliary/pancreatic duct)

GI Comprehensive APC complexity adjustments: Based on a cost and volume threshold, CMS sometimes makes payment adjustments for Comprehensive APCs when two procedures are performed together. In response to comments received, CMS is adding the following procedures to the list of code combinations eligible for an increased payment via the Complexity Adjustment.

  • CPT 43270 (EGD, ablate tumor polyp/lesion with dilation and wire)
  • CPT 43252 (EGD, flexible transoral with optical microscopy)

For more information, see 2024 the payment rules summary and payment tables at https://gastro.org/practice-resources/reimbursement.

The Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee members have no conflicts of interest.

The 2024 updates to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) and the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) final rules represent a mixed bag for gastroenterologists.

Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) Final Rule

Cuts to physician payments continue: The final calendar year (CY) 2024 MPFS conversion factor will be $32.7442, a cut of approximately 3.4% from CY 2023, unless Congress acts. The reduction is the result of several factors, including the statutory base payment update of 0 percent, the reduction in assistance provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (from 2.5% for 2023 to 1.25% for 2024), and budget neutrality adjustments of –2.18 percent resulting from CMS’ finalized policies.

New add-on code for complex care: CMS is finalizing complexity add-on code, G2211 (Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious condition or a complex condition), that it originally proposed in 2018 rulemaking. CMS noted that G2211 cannot be used with an office and outpatient E/M procedure reported with modifier –25. CMS further clarified that the add-on code “is not intended for use by a professional whose relationship with the patient is of a discrete, routine, or time-limited nature ...” CMS further stated, “The inherent complexity that this code (G2211) captures is not in the clinical condition itself ... but rather the cognitive load of the continued responsibility of being the focal point for all needed services for this patient.” For gastroenterologists, it is reasonable to assume G2211 could be reported for care of patients with complex, chronic conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), celiac disease, and/or chronic liver disease.

CMS to align split (or shared) visit policy with CPT rules: Originally, CMS proposed to again delay “through at least December 31, 2024” its planned implementation of defining the “substantive portion” of a split/shared visit as more than half of the total time. However, after the American Medical Association’s CPT Editorial Panel, the body responsible for maintaining the CPT code set, issued new guidelines for split (or shared) services CMS decided to finalize the following policy to align with those guidelines: “Substantive portion means more than half of the total time spent by the physician and nonphysician practitioner performing the split (or shared) visit, or a substantive part of the medical decision making except as otherwise provided in this paragraph. For critical care visits, substantive portion means more than half of the total time spent by the physician and nonphysician practitioner performing the split (or shared) visit.”

While the CPT guidance states, “If code selection is based on total time on the date of the encounter, the service is reported by the professional who spent the majority of the face-to-face or non-face-to-face time performing the service,” this direction does not appear in the finalized CMS language.

CMS has extended Telehealth flexibility provisions through Dec. 31, 2024:

  • Reporting of Home Address — CMS will continue to permit distant site practitioners to use their currently enrolled practice location instead of their home address when providing telehealth services from their home through CY 2024.
  • Place of Service (POS) for Medicare Telehealth Services — Beginning in CY 2024, claims billed with POS 10 (Telehealth Provided in Patient’s Home) will be paid at the non-facility rate, and claims billed with POS 02 (Telehealth Provided Other than in Patient’s Home) will be paid at the facility rate. CMS also clarified that modifier –95 should be used when the clinician is in the hospital and the patient is at home.
  • Direct Supervision with Virtual Presence — CMS will continue to define direct supervision to permit the presence and “immediate availability” of the supervising practitioner through real-time audio and visual interactive telecommunications through CY 2024.
  • Supervision of Residents in Teaching Settings — CMS will allow teaching physicians to have a virtual presence (to continue to include real-time audio and video observation by the teaching physician) in all teaching settings, but only in clinical instances when the service is furnished virtually, through CY 2024.
  • Telephone E/M Services — CMS will continue to pay for CPT codes for telephone assessment and management services (99441-99443) through CY 2024.

Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) Final Rule

Hospital and ASC payments will increase: Conversion factors will increase 3.1% to $87.38 for hospitals and $53.51 for ASCs that meet applicable quality reporting requirements.

Hospital payments for Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) increase: The GI societies successfully advocated for a 67% increase to the facility payment for POEM. To better align with the procedure’s cost, CMS will place CPT code 43497 for POEM into a higher-level Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) (5331 — Complex GI procedures) with a facility payment of $5,435.83.

Cuts to hospital payments for some Level 3 upper GI procedures: CMS has finalized moving the following GI CPT codes that had previously been assigned to APC 5303 (Level 3 Upper GI Procedures — $3,260.69) to APC 5302 (Level 2 Upper GI Procedures — $1,814.88) without explanation and against advice from AGA and the GI societies. This will result in payment cuts of 44% to hospitals.

  • 43252 (EGD, flexible transoral with optical microscopy)
  • 43263 (ERCP with pressure measurement, sphincter of Oddi)
  • 43275 (ERCP, remove foreign body/stent biliary/pancreatic duct)

GI Comprehensive APC complexity adjustments: Based on a cost and volume threshold, CMS sometimes makes payment adjustments for Comprehensive APCs when two procedures are performed together. In response to comments received, CMS is adding the following procedures to the list of code combinations eligible for an increased payment via the Complexity Adjustment.

  • CPT 43270 (EGD, ablate tumor polyp/lesion with dilation and wire)
  • CPT 43252 (EGD, flexible transoral with optical microscopy)

For more information, see 2024 the payment rules summary and payment tables at https://gastro.org/practice-resources/reimbursement.

The Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee members have no conflicts of interest.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

ASH 2023: Equity, Sickle Cell, and Real-Life Outcomes

Article Type
Changed

 

Health equity, sickle cell disease (SCD), and the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media are among the key themes to be presented at the Dec. 9-12 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in San Diego, association leaders told reporters in a media preview session.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.

“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”

As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.

In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”

Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”

Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.

Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.

She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”

ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.

AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”

Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel  “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”

Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.

He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Health equity, sickle cell disease (SCD), and the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media are among the key themes to be presented at the Dec. 9-12 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in San Diego, association leaders told reporters in a media preview session.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.

“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”

As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.

In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”

Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”

Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.

Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.

She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”

ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.

AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”

Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel  “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”

Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.

He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”

 

Health equity, sickle cell disease (SCD), and the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media are among the key themes to be presented at the Dec. 9-12 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in San Diego, association leaders told reporters in a media preview session.

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.

“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”

As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.

In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”

Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”

Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.

Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.

She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”

ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.

AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”

Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel  “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”

Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.

He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT ASH 2023

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

FDA approves pirtobrutinib for previously treated CLL/SLL

Article Type
Changed

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca; Eli Lilly and Company) for third-line or later treatment in adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who previously received a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The agent was initially approved in January 2023 for patients with mantle cell lymphoma who had previously received a BTK inhibitor.

Like the mantle cell approval, the CLL/SLL approval was based on findings from the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN study that included adults with at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The trial included 108 patients with either CLL or SLL. Overall, patients demonstrated an overall response rate of 72%, all of which were partial responses, and median duration of response of 12.2 months.

Before starting pirtobrutinib, 77% of patients with CLL or SLL had discontinued their last BTK inhibitor for refractory or progressive disease.

“Once patients with CLL or SLL have progressed on covalent BTK inhibitor and BCL-2 inhibitor therapies, treatments are limited and outcomes can be poor, making the approval of Jaypirca a meaningful advance and much-needed new treatment option for these patients,” William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an Eli Lilly press release

Treatment during the study included the recommended dose of 200 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Common adverse reactions that occurred in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, bruising, cough, musculoskeletal pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, dyspnea, hemorrhage, edema, nausea, pyrexia, and headache. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in more than 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, anemia, and decreased platelet counts.

Serious infections occurred in 32% of patients, including fatal infections in 10% of patients. The prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings about infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, cardiac arrhythmias, and secondary primary malignancies.

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

 

 

Publications
Topics
Sections

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca; Eli Lilly and Company) for third-line or later treatment in adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who previously received a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The agent was initially approved in January 2023 for patients with mantle cell lymphoma who had previously received a BTK inhibitor.

Like the mantle cell approval, the CLL/SLL approval was based on findings from the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN study that included adults with at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The trial included 108 patients with either CLL or SLL. Overall, patients demonstrated an overall response rate of 72%, all of which were partial responses, and median duration of response of 12.2 months.

Before starting pirtobrutinib, 77% of patients with CLL or SLL had discontinued their last BTK inhibitor for refractory or progressive disease.

“Once patients with CLL or SLL have progressed on covalent BTK inhibitor and BCL-2 inhibitor therapies, treatments are limited and outcomes can be poor, making the approval of Jaypirca a meaningful advance and much-needed new treatment option for these patients,” William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an Eli Lilly press release

Treatment during the study included the recommended dose of 200 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Common adverse reactions that occurred in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, bruising, cough, musculoskeletal pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, dyspnea, hemorrhage, edema, nausea, pyrexia, and headache. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in more than 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, anemia, and decreased platelet counts.

Serious infections occurred in 32% of patients, including fatal infections in 10% of patients. The prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings about infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, cardiac arrhythmias, and secondary primary malignancies.

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

 

 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca; Eli Lilly and Company) for third-line or later treatment in adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who previously received a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The agent was initially approved in January 2023 for patients with mantle cell lymphoma who had previously received a BTK inhibitor.

Like the mantle cell approval, the CLL/SLL approval was based on findings from the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN study that included adults with at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The trial included 108 patients with either CLL or SLL. Overall, patients demonstrated an overall response rate of 72%, all of which were partial responses, and median duration of response of 12.2 months.

Before starting pirtobrutinib, 77% of patients with CLL or SLL had discontinued their last BTK inhibitor for refractory or progressive disease.

“Once patients with CLL or SLL have progressed on covalent BTK inhibitor and BCL-2 inhibitor therapies, treatments are limited and outcomes can be poor, making the approval of Jaypirca a meaningful advance and much-needed new treatment option for these patients,” William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an Eli Lilly press release

Treatment during the study included the recommended dose of 200 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Common adverse reactions that occurred in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, bruising, cough, musculoskeletal pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, dyspnea, hemorrhage, edema, nausea, pyrexia, and headache. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in more than 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, anemia, and decreased platelet counts.

Serious infections occurred in 32% of patients, including fatal infections in 10% of patients. The prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings about infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, cardiac arrhythmias, and secondary primary malignancies.

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

 

 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Increasing Local Productivity Through a Regional Antimicrobial Stewardship Collaborative

Article Type
Changed

The importance of formalized antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) has gained recognition over the past 2 decades. The increasing requirements for ASP programs from national entities often outpace the staffing, technology, and analytic support needed to meet these demands.1,2 A multimodal approach to stewardship that includes education initiatives, audit-and-feedback methodology, and system support is effective in producing sustained change.3 However, this approach is resource intensive, and many ASPs must look outward for additional support.

Centralized ASP collaboratives and stewardship networks have been effective in positively impacting initiatives and outcomes through resource sharing.3-5 These collaboratives can take on multiple forms ranging from centralized education distribution to individual sites coming together to set goals and develop strategies to address common issues.5-8 Collaboratives can provide enhanced data analysis through data pooling, which may lead to shared dashboards or antibiotic use (AU) reports, allowing for robust benchmarking.5-7 Productivity at individual centers is often measured by AU and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates, but these measures alone do not fully capture the benefits of collaborative participation.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), similar to other large health care systems, is uniquely positioned to promote the development of ASP collaboratives due to the use of the same electronic health record system and infrastructure for data. This centralized data lends itself more readily to data dashboards and interfacility comparison. In turn, the identification of facilities that have outlying data for specific measures can lead to a collaborative effort to identify aberrant processes or facility-specific problems and identify, implement, and track the progress of appropriate solutions with less effort and resources.7 The VA has a national stewardship group, the Antimicrobial Stewardship Task Force (ASTF), that identifies and disseminates best practices and advocates for stewardship resources.

VA facilities are heterogeneous with regard to patient population, services, availability of specialists, and antibiotic resistance patterns.9 Therefore, clinical practice and needs vary. The ASTF has spearheaded the development of regional collaboratives, recognizing the potential benefit of smaller groups with shared leadership. The Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs) are geographically demarcated regions that lend themselves well to coordination among member facilities due to similar populations, challenges, and opportunities. The Veterans Affairs Midsouth Healthcare Network (VISN 9) includes 5 facilities across Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Virginia, and Indiana and serves about 293,000 veterans, ranging from 35,000 to 105,000 per facility.

A VISN 9 stewardship collaborative (as described by Buckel and colleagues in 2022) was established to enhance member facility ASPs through shared goal setting.6 Initially, the collaborative met quarterly; however, with increased participation and the onset of COVID-19, the collaborative evolved to meet burgeoning ASP needs. While intrafacility multidisciplinary ASP collaboration has been previously published, few publications on interfacility collaborations exist.3-6 To our knowledge, no previous publications have reported the impact of a VA ASP collaborative on the productivity and effectiveness of participating ASP facilities and the region. We aim to share the structure and processes of this ASP collaborative, demonstrate its impact through quantification of productivity, and aid others in developing similar collaboratives to further ASPs’ impact.

 

 

Methods

The regional VISN 9 ASP collaborative was formed in January 2020 to address common issues across facilities and optimize human capital and resources. The initial collaborative included ASP pharmacists but quickly expanded to include physicians and nurse practitioners. The collaborative is co-led by 2 members from different facilities that rotate.

In April 2021, clinical guidance and research/quality improvement (QI) subcommittees were created. The monthly research/QI subcommittee discusses current initiatives and barriers to ongoing research, adapt and disseminate successful interventions to other facilities, and develop new collaborative initiatives. The clinical guidance subcommittee creates and disseminates clinical expert recommendations regarding common issues or emerging needs.

Data Plan and Collection

To measure success and growth, we evaluated annual facility reports that convey the state of each facility’s ASP, outline its current initiatives and progress, highlight areas of need, and set a programmatic goal and strategy for the upcoming year. These reports, required by a VA directive, are submitted annually by each facility to local and VISN leadership and must address the following 7 areas: (1) ASP structure and fulfillment of national VA policy for ASP; (2) fulfillment of the Joint Commission ASP standards; (3) ASP metrics; (4) ASP activities and interventions; (5) ASP QI and research initiatives; (6) education; and (7) goals and priorities.

To standardize evaluation and accurately reflect ASP effort across heterogeneous reports, 4 core areas were identified from areas 1, 3, 4 and 5 listed previously. Area 2 was excluded for its similarity among all facilities, and areas 6 and 7 were excluded for significant differences in definitions and reporting across facilities.

The project team consisted of 5 members from the collaborative who initially discussed definitions and annual report review methodology. A subgroup was assigned to area 1 and another to areas 3, 4, and 5 for initial review and data extraction. Results were later reviewed to address discrepancies and finalize collation and presentation. 
The impact of the collaborative on individual facilities was measured by both quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitative measures included: (1) designated ASP pharmacy, physician, or advanced practice provider (APP) full-time equivalents (FTE) at each facility compared with the recommended FTE for facility size; (2) the number of inpatient and outpatient ASP AU metrics for each facility and the VISN total; (3) reported improvement in annual ASP metrics calculated as frequency of improved metrics for each facility and the VISN; (4) the number of QI or research initiatives for each facility and the VISN, which included clinical pathways and order sets; and (5) the number of initiatives published as either abstract or manuscript.10 Additionally, the number of collaborative efforts involving more than 1 facility was tracked. Qualitative data included categories of metrics and QI and research initiatives. Data were collected by year and facility. Facilities are labeled A to E throughout this article.

Along with facility annual ASP reports, facility and VISN AU trends for fiscal years (FY) 2019-2022 were collected from existing VA dashboards tracking AU in both acute respiratory infections (ARI) and in patients with COVID-19. Quantitative data included facility and VISN quarterly AU rates for ARI, extracted from the national VA dashboard. Facility and VISN AU rates in patients with COVID-19 were extracted from a dashboard developed by the VISN 9 ASP collaborative. The VISN 9 Institutional Review Board deemed this work QI and approval was waived.

 

 

Results

In 2019, only 2 sites (A and C) reported dedicated FTE compared with recommended minimum staffing; neither met minimum requirements. In 2020, 1 facility (B) met the physician FTE recommendation, and 2 facilities met the pharmacy minimum FTE (D and E). In 2021 and 2022, 2 of 5 facilities (B and E) met the physician minimum FTE, and 2 of 5 (D and E) met the minimum pharmacy FTE recommendations. For the study years 2019 to 2022, 1 facility (E) met both pharmacy and physician FTE recommendations in 2021 and 2022, and 2 facilities (A and C) never met minimum FTE recommendations.

Regarding ASP metrics, all facilities tracked and reported inpatient AU; however, facility A did not document inpatient metrics for FY 2021. The number of individual inpatient metrics varied annually; however, FY 2022 saw the highest reported for the VISN (n = 40), with a more even distribution across facilities (Figure 1). Common metrics in 2022 included total AU, broad-spectrum gram-negative AU, anti–methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) agent use, antibiotics with high risk for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), and AU in patients with COVID-19. The percentage of improved metrics for VISN 9 was consistent, ranging from 26.5% to 34.8%, throughout the study period.

From 2019 to 2022, facilities reporting outpatient AU increased from 3 to 5 and included fluoroquinolone use and AU in ARI. VISN 9 outpatient metrics increased every year except in 2021 with improved distribution across facilities. The number of total metrics with reported improvement in the outpatient setting overall increased from 3 of 11 (27%) in 2019 to 20 of 33 (60%) in 2022.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Initiatives

Quantitative and qualitative data regarding initiatives are reported in Figure 2 and the eAppendix respectively. Since the formation of the collaborative, total initiatives increased from 33 in 2019 to 41 in 2022. In 2019, before the collaborative, individual facilities were working on similar projects in parallel, which included MRSA decolonization (A and C), surgical prophylaxis (A and E), asymptomatic bacteriuria (A and C), and CDI (B, C, D, and E). The development of clinical pathways and order sets remained consistent, ranging from 15 to 19 throughout the study period except for 2020, when 33 clinical pathways and/or order sets were developed. Collaboration between sites also remained consistent, with 1 shared clinical pathway and/or order menu between at least 1 site reported yearly for 2020, 2021, and 2022. The number of publications from VISN 9 grew from 2 in 2019 to 17 in 2022. In 2019, there were no collaborative research or QI publications, but in 2022 there were 2 joint publications, 1 between 2 facilities (A and C) and 1 including all facilities.

ARI and COVID-19 were identified by the collaborative as VISN priorities, leading to shared metrics and benchmarking across facilities. From 2019 to 2022, increased collaboration on these initiatives was noted at all facilities. The ARI goal was established to reduce inappropriate prescribing for ARI/bronchitis to under 20% across VISN 9. Rates dropped from 50.3% (range, 35.4%-77.6%) in FY 2019 quarter (Q) 1 to 15% (range, 8%-18.3%) in FY 2022 Q4. The clinical guidance subcommittee developed a guideline for AU in patients with COVID-19 that was approved by the VISN 9 Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee. A VISN 9 dashboard was developed to track inpatient and outpatient AU for COVID-19. Antibiotic prescribing in the first 4 days of hospitalization decreased from 62.2% at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to 48.7% after dissemination of COVID-19 guidance.

 

 

Discussion

This study demonstrates the benefit of participating in a regional ASP collaborative for individual facilities and the region. Some products from the collaborative include the development of regionwide guidance for the use of antimicrobials in COVID-19, interfacility collaborative initiatives, a COVID-19 dashboard, improvement in metrics, and several publications. Importantly, this expansion occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when many ASP members were spread thin. Moreover, despite 4 sites not meeting VA-recommended ASP staffing requirements for both pharmacists and physicians, productivity increased within the VISN as facilities worked together sharing local challenges and successful paths in removing ASP barriers. The collaborative shared QI strategies, advocated for technological support (ie, Theradoc and dashboards) to maximize available ASP human capital, standardized metric reporting, and made continued efforts sustainable. VA ASTF disseminates evidence-based practice but is not designed to develop tailored site-specific interventions, which has led to the support of VISN-level collaboratives to serve local facilities’ needs. We postulate the use of a collaborative as a beneficial strategy to increase productivity and achieve local goals with limited resources.

Previous reports in the literature have found ASP collaboratives to be an effective model for long-term program growth.3 Two collaboratives found improved adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention core elements for ASP.4,5 Similar to our findings, other collaboratives noted a reduction in AU after implementation, although statistical analysis of improvement over time was not performed to verify significance.3-5,7 One VA study reviewed the use of dashboards with a monthly learning collaborative and identified a reduction in AU.7 However, the structure of our ASP collaborative was through joint meetings and projects, as defined by Buckel and colleagues.6

Our findings highlight that ASP collaboratives can help answer the recent call to action from McGregor, Fitzpatrick, and Suda who advocated for ASPs to take the next steps in stewardship, which include standardization of evaluating metrics and the use of robust QI frameworks.11 Moving forward, an area for research could include a comparison of ASP collaborative infrastructures and productivity to identify optimal fit dependent on facility structure and setting. Parallel to our experience, other reports cite heterogeneous ASP metrics and a lack of benchmarking, spotlighting the need for standardization.8,11,12 The VA and other health care facilities would benefit from national benchmarking of AU metrics to make comparisons across sites beneficial.

Limitations

Using annual reports was a limitation for analyzing and reporting the full impact of the collaborative. Local facility-level discretion of content inclusion led to many facilities only reporting on the forefront of new initiatives that they had developed and may have led to the omission of other ongoing work. Further, time invested into the ASP regional collaborative was not captured within annual reports; therefore, the opportunity cost cannot be determined.

Conclusions

The VA has an advantage that many private health care facilities do not: the ability to work across systems to ease the burden of duplicative work and more readily disseminate effective strategies. The regional ASP collaborative bred innovation and the tearing down of silos. The implementation of the collaborative aided in robust QI infrastructure, standardization of reporting and metrics, and greater support through facility alignments with regional guidance. ASP interfacility collaboratives provide a sustainable solution in a resource-limited landscape.

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by the resources provided through the Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 9.

References

1. Pierce J, Stevens MP. COVID-19 and antimicrobial stewardship: lessons learned, best practices, and future implications. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;113:103-108. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.10.001

2. Emberger J, Tassone D, Stevens MP, Markley JD. The current state of antimicrobial stewardship: challenges, successes, and future directions. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018;20(9):31. doi:10.1007/s11908-018-0637-6

3. Moehring RW, Yarrington ME, Davis AE, et al. Effects of a collaborative, community hospital network for antimicrobial stewardship program implementation. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(9):1656-1663. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab356

4. Logan AY, Williamson JE, Reinke EK, Jarrett SW, Boger MS, Davidson LE. Establishing an antimicrobial stewardship collaborative across a large, diverse health care system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45(9):591-599. doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2019.03.002

5. Dukhovny D, Buus-Frank ME, Edwards EM, et al. A collaborative multicenter QI initiative to improve antibiotic stewardship in newborns. Pediatrics. 2019;144(6):e20190589. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-0589

6. Buckel WR, Stenehjem EA, Hersh AL, Hyun DY, Zetts RM. Harnessing the power of health systems and networks for antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75(11):2038-2044. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac515

7. Graber CJ, Jones MM, Goetz MB, et al. Decreases in antimicrobial use associated with multihospital implementation of electronic antimicrobial stewardship tools. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(5):1168-1176. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz941

8. Kelly AA, Jones MM, Echevarria KL, et al. A report of the efforts of the Veterans Health Administration national antimicrobial stewardship initiative. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(5):513-520. doi:10.1017/ice.2016.328

9. US Department of Veterans Affairs. About VHA. 2022. Updated September 7, 2023. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://www.va.gov/health/aboutVHA.asp

10. Echevarria K, Groppi J, Kelly AA, Morreale AP, Neuhauser MM, Roselle GA. Development and application of an objective staffing calculator for antimicrobial stewardship programs in the Veterans Health Administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(21):1785-1790. doi:10.2146/ajhp160825

11. McGregor JC, Fitzpatrick MA, Suda KJ. Expanding antimicrobial stewardship through quality improvement. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e211072. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1072

12. Newland JG, Gerber JS, Kronman MP, et al. Sharing Antimicrobial Reports for Pediatric Stewardship (SHARPS): a quality improvement collaborative. J Pediatr Infect Dis Soc. 2018;7(2):124-128. doi:10.1093/jpids/pix020

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Morgan C. Johnson, DNPa; Jessica Bennett, PharmDb; Angela Kaucher, PharmDc; Kelly Davis, PharmDd; Milner Staub, MDa,e; Neena Thomas-Gosain, MDf

Correspondence:  Jessica Bennett  ([email protected])

aVeterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville

bLt. Col. Luke Weathers, Jr. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee

cJames H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tennessee

dLexington Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Kentucky

eVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

fUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Ethics and consent

Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 9 Institutional Review Board deemed this work quality improvement and approval was waived.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(12)a
Publications
Topics
Page Number
412
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Morgan C. Johnson, DNPa; Jessica Bennett, PharmDb; Angela Kaucher, PharmDc; Kelly Davis, PharmDd; Milner Staub, MDa,e; Neena Thomas-Gosain, MDf

Correspondence:  Jessica Bennett  ([email protected])

aVeterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville

bLt. Col. Luke Weathers, Jr. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee

cJames H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tennessee

dLexington Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Kentucky

eVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

fUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Ethics and consent

Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 9 Institutional Review Board deemed this work quality improvement and approval was waived.

Author and Disclosure Information

Morgan C. Johnson, DNPa; Jessica Bennett, PharmDb; Angela Kaucher, PharmDc; Kelly Davis, PharmDd; Milner Staub, MDa,e; Neena Thomas-Gosain, MDf

Correspondence:  Jessica Bennett  ([email protected])

aVeterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville

bLt. Col. Luke Weathers, Jr. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee

cJames H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tennessee

dLexington Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Kentucky

eVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

fUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Ethics and consent

Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 9 Institutional Review Board deemed this work quality improvement and approval was waived.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The importance of formalized antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) has gained recognition over the past 2 decades. The increasing requirements for ASP programs from national entities often outpace the staffing, technology, and analytic support needed to meet these demands.1,2 A multimodal approach to stewardship that includes education initiatives, audit-and-feedback methodology, and system support is effective in producing sustained change.3 However, this approach is resource intensive, and many ASPs must look outward for additional support.

Centralized ASP collaboratives and stewardship networks have been effective in positively impacting initiatives and outcomes through resource sharing.3-5 These collaboratives can take on multiple forms ranging from centralized education distribution to individual sites coming together to set goals and develop strategies to address common issues.5-8 Collaboratives can provide enhanced data analysis through data pooling, which may lead to shared dashboards or antibiotic use (AU) reports, allowing for robust benchmarking.5-7 Productivity at individual centers is often measured by AU and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates, but these measures alone do not fully capture the benefits of collaborative participation.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), similar to other large health care systems, is uniquely positioned to promote the development of ASP collaboratives due to the use of the same electronic health record system and infrastructure for data. This centralized data lends itself more readily to data dashboards and interfacility comparison. In turn, the identification of facilities that have outlying data for specific measures can lead to a collaborative effort to identify aberrant processes or facility-specific problems and identify, implement, and track the progress of appropriate solutions with less effort and resources.7 The VA has a national stewardship group, the Antimicrobial Stewardship Task Force (ASTF), that identifies and disseminates best practices and advocates for stewardship resources.

VA facilities are heterogeneous with regard to patient population, services, availability of specialists, and antibiotic resistance patterns.9 Therefore, clinical practice and needs vary. The ASTF has spearheaded the development of regional collaboratives, recognizing the potential benefit of smaller groups with shared leadership. The Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs) are geographically demarcated regions that lend themselves well to coordination among member facilities due to similar populations, challenges, and opportunities. The Veterans Affairs Midsouth Healthcare Network (VISN 9) includes 5 facilities across Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Virginia, and Indiana and serves about 293,000 veterans, ranging from 35,000 to 105,000 per facility.

A VISN 9 stewardship collaborative (as described by Buckel and colleagues in 2022) was established to enhance member facility ASPs through shared goal setting.6 Initially, the collaborative met quarterly; however, with increased participation and the onset of COVID-19, the collaborative evolved to meet burgeoning ASP needs. While intrafacility multidisciplinary ASP collaboration has been previously published, few publications on interfacility collaborations exist.3-6 To our knowledge, no previous publications have reported the impact of a VA ASP collaborative on the productivity and effectiveness of participating ASP facilities and the region. We aim to share the structure and processes of this ASP collaborative, demonstrate its impact through quantification of productivity, and aid others in developing similar collaboratives to further ASPs’ impact.

 

 

Methods

The regional VISN 9 ASP collaborative was formed in January 2020 to address common issues across facilities and optimize human capital and resources. The initial collaborative included ASP pharmacists but quickly expanded to include physicians and nurse practitioners. The collaborative is co-led by 2 members from different facilities that rotate.

In April 2021, clinical guidance and research/quality improvement (QI) subcommittees were created. The monthly research/QI subcommittee discusses current initiatives and barriers to ongoing research, adapt and disseminate successful interventions to other facilities, and develop new collaborative initiatives. The clinical guidance subcommittee creates and disseminates clinical expert recommendations regarding common issues or emerging needs.

Data Plan and Collection

To measure success and growth, we evaluated annual facility reports that convey the state of each facility’s ASP, outline its current initiatives and progress, highlight areas of need, and set a programmatic goal and strategy for the upcoming year. These reports, required by a VA directive, are submitted annually by each facility to local and VISN leadership and must address the following 7 areas: (1) ASP structure and fulfillment of national VA policy for ASP; (2) fulfillment of the Joint Commission ASP standards; (3) ASP metrics; (4) ASP activities and interventions; (5) ASP QI and research initiatives; (6) education; and (7) goals and priorities.

To standardize evaluation and accurately reflect ASP effort across heterogeneous reports, 4 core areas were identified from areas 1, 3, 4 and 5 listed previously. Area 2 was excluded for its similarity among all facilities, and areas 6 and 7 were excluded for significant differences in definitions and reporting across facilities.

The project team consisted of 5 members from the collaborative who initially discussed definitions and annual report review methodology. A subgroup was assigned to area 1 and another to areas 3, 4, and 5 for initial review and data extraction. Results were later reviewed to address discrepancies and finalize collation and presentation. 
The impact of the collaborative on individual facilities was measured by both quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitative measures included: (1) designated ASP pharmacy, physician, or advanced practice provider (APP) full-time equivalents (FTE) at each facility compared with the recommended FTE for facility size; (2) the number of inpatient and outpatient ASP AU metrics for each facility and the VISN total; (3) reported improvement in annual ASP metrics calculated as frequency of improved metrics for each facility and the VISN; (4) the number of QI or research initiatives for each facility and the VISN, which included clinical pathways and order sets; and (5) the number of initiatives published as either abstract or manuscript.10 Additionally, the number of collaborative efforts involving more than 1 facility was tracked. Qualitative data included categories of metrics and QI and research initiatives. Data were collected by year and facility. Facilities are labeled A to E throughout this article.

Along with facility annual ASP reports, facility and VISN AU trends for fiscal years (FY) 2019-2022 were collected from existing VA dashboards tracking AU in both acute respiratory infections (ARI) and in patients with COVID-19. Quantitative data included facility and VISN quarterly AU rates for ARI, extracted from the national VA dashboard. Facility and VISN AU rates in patients with COVID-19 were extracted from a dashboard developed by the VISN 9 ASP collaborative. The VISN 9 Institutional Review Board deemed this work QI and approval was waived.

 

 

Results

In 2019, only 2 sites (A and C) reported dedicated FTE compared with recommended minimum staffing; neither met minimum requirements. In 2020, 1 facility (B) met the physician FTE recommendation, and 2 facilities met the pharmacy minimum FTE (D and E). In 2021 and 2022, 2 of 5 facilities (B and E) met the physician minimum FTE, and 2 of 5 (D and E) met the minimum pharmacy FTE recommendations. For the study years 2019 to 2022, 1 facility (E) met both pharmacy and physician FTE recommendations in 2021 and 2022, and 2 facilities (A and C) never met minimum FTE recommendations.

Regarding ASP metrics, all facilities tracked and reported inpatient AU; however, facility A did not document inpatient metrics for FY 2021. The number of individual inpatient metrics varied annually; however, FY 2022 saw the highest reported for the VISN (n = 40), with a more even distribution across facilities (Figure 1). Common metrics in 2022 included total AU, broad-spectrum gram-negative AU, anti–methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) agent use, antibiotics with high risk for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), and AU in patients with COVID-19. The percentage of improved metrics for VISN 9 was consistent, ranging from 26.5% to 34.8%, throughout the study period.

From 2019 to 2022, facilities reporting outpatient AU increased from 3 to 5 and included fluoroquinolone use and AU in ARI. VISN 9 outpatient metrics increased every year except in 2021 with improved distribution across facilities. The number of total metrics with reported improvement in the outpatient setting overall increased from 3 of 11 (27%) in 2019 to 20 of 33 (60%) in 2022.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Initiatives

Quantitative and qualitative data regarding initiatives are reported in Figure 2 and the eAppendix respectively. Since the formation of the collaborative, total initiatives increased from 33 in 2019 to 41 in 2022. In 2019, before the collaborative, individual facilities were working on similar projects in parallel, which included MRSA decolonization (A and C), surgical prophylaxis (A and E), asymptomatic bacteriuria (A and C), and CDI (B, C, D, and E). The development of clinical pathways and order sets remained consistent, ranging from 15 to 19 throughout the study period except for 2020, when 33 clinical pathways and/or order sets were developed. Collaboration between sites also remained consistent, with 1 shared clinical pathway and/or order menu between at least 1 site reported yearly for 2020, 2021, and 2022. The number of publications from VISN 9 grew from 2 in 2019 to 17 in 2022. In 2019, there were no collaborative research or QI publications, but in 2022 there were 2 joint publications, 1 between 2 facilities (A and C) and 1 including all facilities.

ARI and COVID-19 were identified by the collaborative as VISN priorities, leading to shared metrics and benchmarking across facilities. From 2019 to 2022, increased collaboration on these initiatives was noted at all facilities. The ARI goal was established to reduce inappropriate prescribing for ARI/bronchitis to under 20% across VISN 9. Rates dropped from 50.3% (range, 35.4%-77.6%) in FY 2019 quarter (Q) 1 to 15% (range, 8%-18.3%) in FY 2022 Q4. The clinical guidance subcommittee developed a guideline for AU in patients with COVID-19 that was approved by the VISN 9 Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee. A VISN 9 dashboard was developed to track inpatient and outpatient AU for COVID-19. Antibiotic prescribing in the first 4 days of hospitalization decreased from 62.2% at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to 48.7% after dissemination of COVID-19 guidance.

 

 

Discussion

This study demonstrates the benefit of participating in a regional ASP collaborative for individual facilities and the region. Some products from the collaborative include the development of regionwide guidance for the use of antimicrobials in COVID-19, interfacility collaborative initiatives, a COVID-19 dashboard, improvement in metrics, and several publications. Importantly, this expansion occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when many ASP members were spread thin. Moreover, despite 4 sites not meeting VA-recommended ASP staffing requirements for both pharmacists and physicians, productivity increased within the VISN as facilities worked together sharing local challenges and successful paths in removing ASP barriers. The collaborative shared QI strategies, advocated for technological support (ie, Theradoc and dashboards) to maximize available ASP human capital, standardized metric reporting, and made continued efforts sustainable. VA ASTF disseminates evidence-based practice but is not designed to develop tailored site-specific interventions, which has led to the support of VISN-level collaboratives to serve local facilities’ needs. We postulate the use of a collaborative as a beneficial strategy to increase productivity and achieve local goals with limited resources.

Previous reports in the literature have found ASP collaboratives to be an effective model for long-term program growth.3 Two collaboratives found improved adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention core elements for ASP.4,5 Similar to our findings, other collaboratives noted a reduction in AU after implementation, although statistical analysis of improvement over time was not performed to verify significance.3-5,7 One VA study reviewed the use of dashboards with a monthly learning collaborative and identified a reduction in AU.7 However, the structure of our ASP collaborative was through joint meetings and projects, as defined by Buckel and colleagues.6

Our findings highlight that ASP collaboratives can help answer the recent call to action from McGregor, Fitzpatrick, and Suda who advocated for ASPs to take the next steps in stewardship, which include standardization of evaluating metrics and the use of robust QI frameworks.11 Moving forward, an area for research could include a comparison of ASP collaborative infrastructures and productivity to identify optimal fit dependent on facility structure and setting. Parallel to our experience, other reports cite heterogeneous ASP metrics and a lack of benchmarking, spotlighting the need for standardization.8,11,12 The VA and other health care facilities would benefit from national benchmarking of AU metrics to make comparisons across sites beneficial.

Limitations

Using annual reports was a limitation for analyzing and reporting the full impact of the collaborative. Local facility-level discretion of content inclusion led to many facilities only reporting on the forefront of new initiatives that they had developed and may have led to the omission of other ongoing work. Further, time invested into the ASP regional collaborative was not captured within annual reports; therefore, the opportunity cost cannot be determined.

Conclusions

The VA has an advantage that many private health care facilities do not: the ability to work across systems to ease the burden of duplicative work and more readily disseminate effective strategies. The regional ASP collaborative bred innovation and the tearing down of silos. The implementation of the collaborative aided in robust QI infrastructure, standardization of reporting and metrics, and greater support through facility alignments with regional guidance. ASP interfacility collaboratives provide a sustainable solution in a resource-limited landscape.

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by the resources provided through the Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 9.

The importance of formalized antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) has gained recognition over the past 2 decades. The increasing requirements for ASP programs from national entities often outpace the staffing, technology, and analytic support needed to meet these demands.1,2 A multimodal approach to stewardship that includes education initiatives, audit-and-feedback methodology, and system support is effective in producing sustained change.3 However, this approach is resource intensive, and many ASPs must look outward for additional support.

Centralized ASP collaboratives and stewardship networks have been effective in positively impacting initiatives and outcomes through resource sharing.3-5 These collaboratives can take on multiple forms ranging from centralized education distribution to individual sites coming together to set goals and develop strategies to address common issues.5-8 Collaboratives can provide enhanced data analysis through data pooling, which may lead to shared dashboards or antibiotic use (AU) reports, allowing for robust benchmarking.5-7 Productivity at individual centers is often measured by AU and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates, but these measures alone do not fully capture the benefits of collaborative participation.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), similar to other large health care systems, is uniquely positioned to promote the development of ASP collaboratives due to the use of the same electronic health record system and infrastructure for data. This centralized data lends itself more readily to data dashboards and interfacility comparison. In turn, the identification of facilities that have outlying data for specific measures can lead to a collaborative effort to identify aberrant processes or facility-specific problems and identify, implement, and track the progress of appropriate solutions with less effort and resources.7 The VA has a national stewardship group, the Antimicrobial Stewardship Task Force (ASTF), that identifies and disseminates best practices and advocates for stewardship resources.

VA facilities are heterogeneous with regard to patient population, services, availability of specialists, and antibiotic resistance patterns.9 Therefore, clinical practice and needs vary. The ASTF has spearheaded the development of regional collaboratives, recognizing the potential benefit of smaller groups with shared leadership. The Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs) are geographically demarcated regions that lend themselves well to coordination among member facilities due to similar populations, challenges, and opportunities. The Veterans Affairs Midsouth Healthcare Network (VISN 9) includes 5 facilities across Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Virginia, and Indiana and serves about 293,000 veterans, ranging from 35,000 to 105,000 per facility.

A VISN 9 stewardship collaborative (as described by Buckel and colleagues in 2022) was established to enhance member facility ASPs through shared goal setting.6 Initially, the collaborative met quarterly; however, with increased participation and the onset of COVID-19, the collaborative evolved to meet burgeoning ASP needs. While intrafacility multidisciplinary ASP collaboration has been previously published, few publications on interfacility collaborations exist.3-6 To our knowledge, no previous publications have reported the impact of a VA ASP collaborative on the productivity and effectiveness of participating ASP facilities and the region. We aim to share the structure and processes of this ASP collaborative, demonstrate its impact through quantification of productivity, and aid others in developing similar collaboratives to further ASPs’ impact.

 

 

Methods

The regional VISN 9 ASP collaborative was formed in January 2020 to address common issues across facilities and optimize human capital and resources. The initial collaborative included ASP pharmacists but quickly expanded to include physicians and nurse practitioners. The collaborative is co-led by 2 members from different facilities that rotate.

In April 2021, clinical guidance and research/quality improvement (QI) subcommittees were created. The monthly research/QI subcommittee discusses current initiatives and barriers to ongoing research, adapt and disseminate successful interventions to other facilities, and develop new collaborative initiatives. The clinical guidance subcommittee creates and disseminates clinical expert recommendations regarding common issues or emerging needs.

Data Plan and Collection

To measure success and growth, we evaluated annual facility reports that convey the state of each facility’s ASP, outline its current initiatives and progress, highlight areas of need, and set a programmatic goal and strategy for the upcoming year. These reports, required by a VA directive, are submitted annually by each facility to local and VISN leadership and must address the following 7 areas: (1) ASP structure and fulfillment of national VA policy for ASP; (2) fulfillment of the Joint Commission ASP standards; (3) ASP metrics; (4) ASP activities and interventions; (5) ASP QI and research initiatives; (6) education; and (7) goals and priorities.

To standardize evaluation and accurately reflect ASP effort across heterogeneous reports, 4 core areas were identified from areas 1, 3, 4 and 5 listed previously. Area 2 was excluded for its similarity among all facilities, and areas 6 and 7 were excluded for significant differences in definitions and reporting across facilities.

The project team consisted of 5 members from the collaborative who initially discussed definitions and annual report review methodology. A subgroup was assigned to area 1 and another to areas 3, 4, and 5 for initial review and data extraction. Results were later reviewed to address discrepancies and finalize collation and presentation. 
The impact of the collaborative on individual facilities was measured by both quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitative measures included: (1) designated ASP pharmacy, physician, or advanced practice provider (APP) full-time equivalents (FTE) at each facility compared with the recommended FTE for facility size; (2) the number of inpatient and outpatient ASP AU metrics for each facility and the VISN total; (3) reported improvement in annual ASP metrics calculated as frequency of improved metrics for each facility and the VISN; (4) the number of QI or research initiatives for each facility and the VISN, which included clinical pathways and order sets; and (5) the number of initiatives published as either abstract or manuscript.10 Additionally, the number of collaborative efforts involving more than 1 facility was tracked. Qualitative data included categories of metrics and QI and research initiatives. Data were collected by year and facility. Facilities are labeled A to E throughout this article.

Along with facility annual ASP reports, facility and VISN AU trends for fiscal years (FY) 2019-2022 were collected from existing VA dashboards tracking AU in both acute respiratory infections (ARI) and in patients with COVID-19. Quantitative data included facility and VISN quarterly AU rates for ARI, extracted from the national VA dashboard. Facility and VISN AU rates in patients with COVID-19 were extracted from a dashboard developed by the VISN 9 ASP collaborative. The VISN 9 Institutional Review Board deemed this work QI and approval was waived.

 

 

Results

In 2019, only 2 sites (A and C) reported dedicated FTE compared with recommended minimum staffing; neither met minimum requirements. In 2020, 1 facility (B) met the physician FTE recommendation, and 2 facilities met the pharmacy minimum FTE (D and E). In 2021 and 2022, 2 of 5 facilities (B and E) met the physician minimum FTE, and 2 of 5 (D and E) met the minimum pharmacy FTE recommendations. For the study years 2019 to 2022, 1 facility (E) met both pharmacy and physician FTE recommendations in 2021 and 2022, and 2 facilities (A and C) never met minimum FTE recommendations.

Regarding ASP metrics, all facilities tracked and reported inpatient AU; however, facility A did not document inpatient metrics for FY 2021. The number of individual inpatient metrics varied annually; however, FY 2022 saw the highest reported for the VISN (n = 40), with a more even distribution across facilities (Figure 1). Common metrics in 2022 included total AU, broad-spectrum gram-negative AU, anti–methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) agent use, antibiotics with high risk for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), and AU in patients with COVID-19. The percentage of improved metrics for VISN 9 was consistent, ranging from 26.5% to 34.8%, throughout the study period.

From 2019 to 2022, facilities reporting outpatient AU increased from 3 to 5 and included fluoroquinolone use and AU in ARI. VISN 9 outpatient metrics increased every year except in 2021 with improved distribution across facilities. The number of total metrics with reported improvement in the outpatient setting overall increased from 3 of 11 (27%) in 2019 to 20 of 33 (60%) in 2022.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Initiatives

Quantitative and qualitative data regarding initiatives are reported in Figure 2 and the eAppendix respectively. Since the formation of the collaborative, total initiatives increased from 33 in 2019 to 41 in 2022. In 2019, before the collaborative, individual facilities were working on similar projects in parallel, which included MRSA decolonization (A and C), surgical prophylaxis (A and E), asymptomatic bacteriuria (A and C), and CDI (B, C, D, and E). The development of clinical pathways and order sets remained consistent, ranging from 15 to 19 throughout the study period except for 2020, when 33 clinical pathways and/or order sets were developed. Collaboration between sites also remained consistent, with 1 shared clinical pathway and/or order menu between at least 1 site reported yearly for 2020, 2021, and 2022. The number of publications from VISN 9 grew from 2 in 2019 to 17 in 2022. In 2019, there were no collaborative research or QI publications, but in 2022 there were 2 joint publications, 1 between 2 facilities (A and C) and 1 including all facilities.

ARI and COVID-19 were identified by the collaborative as VISN priorities, leading to shared metrics and benchmarking across facilities. From 2019 to 2022, increased collaboration on these initiatives was noted at all facilities. The ARI goal was established to reduce inappropriate prescribing for ARI/bronchitis to under 20% across VISN 9. Rates dropped from 50.3% (range, 35.4%-77.6%) in FY 2019 quarter (Q) 1 to 15% (range, 8%-18.3%) in FY 2022 Q4. The clinical guidance subcommittee developed a guideline for AU in patients with COVID-19 that was approved by the VISN 9 Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee. A VISN 9 dashboard was developed to track inpatient and outpatient AU for COVID-19. Antibiotic prescribing in the first 4 days of hospitalization decreased from 62.2% at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to 48.7% after dissemination of COVID-19 guidance.

 

 

Discussion

This study demonstrates the benefit of participating in a regional ASP collaborative for individual facilities and the region. Some products from the collaborative include the development of regionwide guidance for the use of antimicrobials in COVID-19, interfacility collaborative initiatives, a COVID-19 dashboard, improvement in metrics, and several publications. Importantly, this expansion occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when many ASP members were spread thin. Moreover, despite 4 sites not meeting VA-recommended ASP staffing requirements for both pharmacists and physicians, productivity increased within the VISN as facilities worked together sharing local challenges and successful paths in removing ASP barriers. The collaborative shared QI strategies, advocated for technological support (ie, Theradoc and dashboards) to maximize available ASP human capital, standardized metric reporting, and made continued efforts sustainable. VA ASTF disseminates evidence-based practice but is not designed to develop tailored site-specific interventions, which has led to the support of VISN-level collaboratives to serve local facilities’ needs. We postulate the use of a collaborative as a beneficial strategy to increase productivity and achieve local goals with limited resources.

Previous reports in the literature have found ASP collaboratives to be an effective model for long-term program growth.3 Two collaboratives found improved adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention core elements for ASP.4,5 Similar to our findings, other collaboratives noted a reduction in AU after implementation, although statistical analysis of improvement over time was not performed to verify significance.3-5,7 One VA study reviewed the use of dashboards with a monthly learning collaborative and identified a reduction in AU.7 However, the structure of our ASP collaborative was through joint meetings and projects, as defined by Buckel and colleagues.6

Our findings highlight that ASP collaboratives can help answer the recent call to action from McGregor, Fitzpatrick, and Suda who advocated for ASPs to take the next steps in stewardship, which include standardization of evaluating metrics and the use of robust QI frameworks.11 Moving forward, an area for research could include a comparison of ASP collaborative infrastructures and productivity to identify optimal fit dependent on facility structure and setting. Parallel to our experience, other reports cite heterogeneous ASP metrics and a lack of benchmarking, spotlighting the need for standardization.8,11,12 The VA and other health care facilities would benefit from national benchmarking of AU metrics to make comparisons across sites beneficial.

Limitations

Using annual reports was a limitation for analyzing and reporting the full impact of the collaborative. Local facility-level discretion of content inclusion led to many facilities only reporting on the forefront of new initiatives that they had developed and may have led to the omission of other ongoing work. Further, time invested into the ASP regional collaborative was not captured within annual reports; therefore, the opportunity cost cannot be determined.

Conclusions

The VA has an advantage that many private health care facilities do not: the ability to work across systems to ease the burden of duplicative work and more readily disseminate effective strategies. The regional ASP collaborative bred innovation and the tearing down of silos. The implementation of the collaborative aided in robust QI infrastructure, standardization of reporting and metrics, and greater support through facility alignments with regional guidance. ASP interfacility collaboratives provide a sustainable solution in a resource-limited landscape.

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by the resources provided through the Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs in the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 9.

References

1. Pierce J, Stevens MP. COVID-19 and antimicrobial stewardship: lessons learned, best practices, and future implications. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;113:103-108. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.10.001

2. Emberger J, Tassone D, Stevens MP, Markley JD. The current state of antimicrobial stewardship: challenges, successes, and future directions. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018;20(9):31. doi:10.1007/s11908-018-0637-6

3. Moehring RW, Yarrington ME, Davis AE, et al. Effects of a collaborative, community hospital network for antimicrobial stewardship program implementation. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(9):1656-1663. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab356

4. Logan AY, Williamson JE, Reinke EK, Jarrett SW, Boger MS, Davidson LE. Establishing an antimicrobial stewardship collaborative across a large, diverse health care system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45(9):591-599. doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2019.03.002

5. Dukhovny D, Buus-Frank ME, Edwards EM, et al. A collaborative multicenter QI initiative to improve antibiotic stewardship in newborns. Pediatrics. 2019;144(6):e20190589. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-0589

6. Buckel WR, Stenehjem EA, Hersh AL, Hyun DY, Zetts RM. Harnessing the power of health systems and networks for antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75(11):2038-2044. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac515

7. Graber CJ, Jones MM, Goetz MB, et al. Decreases in antimicrobial use associated with multihospital implementation of electronic antimicrobial stewardship tools. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(5):1168-1176. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz941

8. Kelly AA, Jones MM, Echevarria KL, et al. A report of the efforts of the Veterans Health Administration national antimicrobial stewardship initiative. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(5):513-520. doi:10.1017/ice.2016.328

9. US Department of Veterans Affairs. About VHA. 2022. Updated September 7, 2023. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://www.va.gov/health/aboutVHA.asp

10. Echevarria K, Groppi J, Kelly AA, Morreale AP, Neuhauser MM, Roselle GA. Development and application of an objective staffing calculator for antimicrobial stewardship programs in the Veterans Health Administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(21):1785-1790. doi:10.2146/ajhp160825

11. McGregor JC, Fitzpatrick MA, Suda KJ. Expanding antimicrobial stewardship through quality improvement. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e211072. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1072

12. Newland JG, Gerber JS, Kronman MP, et al. Sharing Antimicrobial Reports for Pediatric Stewardship (SHARPS): a quality improvement collaborative. J Pediatr Infect Dis Soc. 2018;7(2):124-128. doi:10.1093/jpids/pix020

References

1. Pierce J, Stevens MP. COVID-19 and antimicrobial stewardship: lessons learned, best practices, and future implications. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;113:103-108. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.10.001

2. Emberger J, Tassone D, Stevens MP, Markley JD. The current state of antimicrobial stewardship: challenges, successes, and future directions. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2018;20(9):31. doi:10.1007/s11908-018-0637-6

3. Moehring RW, Yarrington ME, Davis AE, et al. Effects of a collaborative, community hospital network for antimicrobial stewardship program implementation. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(9):1656-1663. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab356

4. Logan AY, Williamson JE, Reinke EK, Jarrett SW, Boger MS, Davidson LE. Establishing an antimicrobial stewardship collaborative across a large, diverse health care system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;45(9):591-599. doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2019.03.002

5. Dukhovny D, Buus-Frank ME, Edwards EM, et al. A collaborative multicenter QI initiative to improve antibiotic stewardship in newborns. Pediatrics. 2019;144(6):e20190589. doi:10.1542/peds.2019-0589

6. Buckel WR, Stenehjem EA, Hersh AL, Hyun DY, Zetts RM. Harnessing the power of health systems and networks for antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;75(11):2038-2044. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac515

7. Graber CJ, Jones MM, Goetz MB, et al. Decreases in antimicrobial use associated with multihospital implementation of electronic antimicrobial stewardship tools. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(5):1168-1176. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz941

8. Kelly AA, Jones MM, Echevarria KL, et al. A report of the efforts of the Veterans Health Administration national antimicrobial stewardship initiative. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(5):513-520. doi:10.1017/ice.2016.328

9. US Department of Veterans Affairs. About VHA. 2022. Updated September 7, 2023. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://www.va.gov/health/aboutVHA.asp

10. Echevarria K, Groppi J, Kelly AA, Morreale AP, Neuhauser MM, Roselle GA. Development and application of an objective staffing calculator for antimicrobial stewardship programs in the Veterans Health Administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(21):1785-1790. doi:10.2146/ajhp160825

11. McGregor JC, Fitzpatrick MA, Suda KJ. Expanding antimicrobial stewardship through quality improvement. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e211072. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1072

12. Newland JG, Gerber JS, Kronman MP, et al. Sharing Antimicrobial Reports for Pediatric Stewardship (SHARPS): a quality improvement collaborative. J Pediatr Infect Dis Soc. 2018;7(2):124-128. doi:10.1093/jpids/pix020

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(12)a
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(12)a
Page Number
412
Page Number
412
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Equity and Inclusion in Military Recruitment: The Case for Neurodiversity in Uniform

Article Type
Changed

The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive how the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.

George Washington? 1

This editorial is the second of the 2-part series on the recruitment crisis currently confronting the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Part 1 focused on rationales for the lack of interest or motivation among those potentially eligible to join the military. This column looks at individuals eager to serve who do not meet eligibility requirements. A 2022 article examining the 2020 Qualified Military Available Study found that without a waiver 77% of Americans in the prime recruiting age group 17 to 24 years would be ineligible for the military due to weight, substance use, or mental and physical health conditions. Most young adults met several ineligibility criteria.2

Obesity and substance use are the most common disqualifiers, mirroring the culture at large. Scores of other physical and mental health conditions render an applicant ineligible for military service or require a waiver. The justification of all eligibility criteria is to: (1) ensure that service members can safely and effectively deploy; and (2) reduce the attrition rate. Both are essential to the mission readiness of the military. In 2022, the military gave 1 in 6 of those seeking enlistment an accession waiver.3 About 4% of waivers issued were for mental health conditions, such as autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The response to the recruiting crisis resulted in the largest number of waivers granted in a decade. Military Times noted that exact numbers are hard to obtain, interfering with the transparency of public policy as well as high-quality research on waivers’ impact on recruits and the service.3

The War Horse reported that the current waiver process is riddled with procedural injustice and inequity in implementation.4 Each service sets its eligibility requirements: the rationale being that the respective branches have distinct roles necessitating distinguishing qualifications. What is far more difficult to defend is that wide variation exists in the application of the criteria. Similar cases are judged differently, depending on nonmaterial factors, such as geographic location and unwritten policies of recruiting offices. Waiver approval rates for mental health conditions range from 35% for the Army to 71% for the Marines. The prospective recruit, not the military service, bears the burden of demonstrating that their condition does not impair their fitness for duty; hence, thousands have been disqualified based on their diagnosis.4 This comes at a time when the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the US Department of Defense (DoD) have been battling a suicide epidemic for years. Current qualifying standards send a strong stigmatizing message to those who want to enlist and those already in the ranks at a time the DoD and VA are launching campaigns to persuade active-duty members and veterans to seek mental health treatment.5

The recruiting crisis brought into stark relief more fundamental questions about the clinical and ethical aspects of eligibility criteria that either disqualify outright or require a waiver process for many young Americans with mental health conditions who want to serve their country. One of the most clinically perplexing standards is that applicants with ADHD are disqualified if they have taken medications in the past 12 to 24 months, depending on the service.6 Despite this policy, the Army acknowledges that stimulant medications may improve the function of individuals with ADHD and reduce the rates of substance use and behavior disturbances, the real concerns for recruiters and commanders.7

Requirements like these place otherwise high-functioning individuals whose professional goal is to serve in the military in a double bind. The military’s studies show that recruits’ persistent nondisclosure of their diagnoses results in poorer performance and higher attrition rates of those who have enlisted, even when treated.8 If potential recruits disclose their psychiatric history, they may well be disqualified and/or denied a waiver. This is even more true for service members already in the military who may believe they have one of the conditions but fear that being diagnosed will negatively impact their career. Not disclosing their condition prevents service members from obtaining the clinical care and support they need to succeed and also limits the ability of commanders to make decisions about deployment that ensure maximal unit performance and the safety of the service member.9 However, ADHD is one of 38 diagnoses that the DoD is considering for possible removal or modification of the waiver for some subset of applicants.10

The final irony is that medicine and warfare have changed dramatically and rapidly since the initial determination that diagnoses like ADHD and autism disqualify individuals from serving. A Rand Corporation study found that individuals who are neurodivergent—the name collectively assigned to individuals with diagnoses like autism and ADHD—may have unique abilities that enable them to outperform neurotypical persons in areas like pattern recognition, attention to detail, repetitive tasks, and memory, among others. These highly technical skills are essential to intelligence analysis and cybersecurity domains that are increasingly crucial to both national defense and victory on the battlefield.11 Even congressional representatives who just a few years ago criticized waivers for mental health conditions as “lowering the standards” are now pushing for more moderate policies, especially for those who have received and responded to treatment for their mental health disorders.12

The epigraph has been widely and persistently misattributed to the country’s first commander in chief, George Washington, because it captures a salient sentiment directly bearing on the question of who is fit for duty.1 History has shown that discrimination in enlistment only weakens the fighting force, whereas diversity, including neurodiversity, in the military as in society is a source of strength. Equitable inclusion of those who have the discipline, desire, and dedication to serve their country may be the most positive response to the recruitment crisis.

References

1. George Washington’s Mount Vernon Washington Library. Accessed November 13, 2023. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

2. Novelty T. Even more young Americans are unfit to serve, a new study finds, here’s why. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/09/28/new-pentagon-study-shows-77-of-young-americans-are-ineligible-military-service.html

3. Cohen RS. Need for accession waivers soars amid historic recruiting challenges. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-air-force/2023/04/10/need-for-accession-waivers-soars-amid-historic-recruiting-challenges

4. Barnhill J. The military is missing recruitment goals. Are thousands being disqualified. The War Horse. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://thewarhorse.org/us-military-recruitment-crisis-may-hinge-on-medical-waivers

5. Hauschild V. Army experts: mixed messages can fuel stigma, prevent soldiers from accessing behavioral healthcare. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.army.mil/article/262525/army_experts_mixed_messages_can_fuel_stigma_prevent_soldiers_from_accessing_behavioral_healthcare

6. US Department of Defense. DoD Instructions 6130.03 Volume 1. Section 6, Medical Standards for Military Service: Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction. Updated November 16, 2022. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/613003_vol1.PDF

7. Sayers D, Hu Z, Clark LL. Attrition rates and incidence of mental health disorders in an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) cohort, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2014-2018. MSMR. 2021;28(1):2-8.

8. Woods J. Serving with ADHD. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2022/February/Serving-with-ADHD

9. Thayer RL. Pentagon reviews whether 38 medical conditions should remain as disqualifiers for military service. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-03-07/military-medical-waivers-recruitment-9417905.html

10. Weinbaum C. An autistic soldier wants you to read this. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://mwi.usma.edu/an-autistic-soldier-wants-you-to-read-this

11. Weinbaum C, Khan O, Thomas TD, Stein BD. Neurodiversity and national security. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1875-1.html

12. Myers M. Senators push DoD to approve recruits who have sought mental health care. Accessed November 20, 2023.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/16/senators-push-dod-to-approve-recruits-whove-sought-mental-health-care

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Cynthia Geppert

Correspondence:  Cynthia Geppert  ([email protected])

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(12)a
Publications
Topics
Page Number
396
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Cynthia Geppert

Correspondence:  Cynthia Geppert  ([email protected])

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Author and Disclosure Information

Cynthia Geppert

Correspondence:  Cynthia Geppert  ([email protected])

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive how the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.

George Washington? 1

This editorial is the second of the 2-part series on the recruitment crisis currently confronting the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Part 1 focused on rationales for the lack of interest or motivation among those potentially eligible to join the military. This column looks at individuals eager to serve who do not meet eligibility requirements. A 2022 article examining the 2020 Qualified Military Available Study found that without a waiver 77% of Americans in the prime recruiting age group 17 to 24 years would be ineligible for the military due to weight, substance use, or mental and physical health conditions. Most young adults met several ineligibility criteria.2

Obesity and substance use are the most common disqualifiers, mirroring the culture at large. Scores of other physical and mental health conditions render an applicant ineligible for military service or require a waiver. The justification of all eligibility criteria is to: (1) ensure that service members can safely and effectively deploy; and (2) reduce the attrition rate. Both are essential to the mission readiness of the military. In 2022, the military gave 1 in 6 of those seeking enlistment an accession waiver.3 About 4% of waivers issued were for mental health conditions, such as autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The response to the recruiting crisis resulted in the largest number of waivers granted in a decade. Military Times noted that exact numbers are hard to obtain, interfering with the transparency of public policy as well as high-quality research on waivers’ impact on recruits and the service.3

The War Horse reported that the current waiver process is riddled with procedural injustice and inequity in implementation.4 Each service sets its eligibility requirements: the rationale being that the respective branches have distinct roles necessitating distinguishing qualifications. What is far more difficult to defend is that wide variation exists in the application of the criteria. Similar cases are judged differently, depending on nonmaterial factors, such as geographic location and unwritten policies of recruiting offices. Waiver approval rates for mental health conditions range from 35% for the Army to 71% for the Marines. The prospective recruit, not the military service, bears the burden of demonstrating that their condition does not impair their fitness for duty; hence, thousands have been disqualified based on their diagnosis.4 This comes at a time when the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the US Department of Defense (DoD) have been battling a suicide epidemic for years. Current qualifying standards send a strong stigmatizing message to those who want to enlist and those already in the ranks at a time the DoD and VA are launching campaigns to persuade active-duty members and veterans to seek mental health treatment.5

The recruiting crisis brought into stark relief more fundamental questions about the clinical and ethical aspects of eligibility criteria that either disqualify outright or require a waiver process for many young Americans with mental health conditions who want to serve their country. One of the most clinically perplexing standards is that applicants with ADHD are disqualified if they have taken medications in the past 12 to 24 months, depending on the service.6 Despite this policy, the Army acknowledges that stimulant medications may improve the function of individuals with ADHD and reduce the rates of substance use and behavior disturbances, the real concerns for recruiters and commanders.7

Requirements like these place otherwise high-functioning individuals whose professional goal is to serve in the military in a double bind. The military’s studies show that recruits’ persistent nondisclosure of their diagnoses results in poorer performance and higher attrition rates of those who have enlisted, even when treated.8 If potential recruits disclose their psychiatric history, they may well be disqualified and/or denied a waiver. This is even more true for service members already in the military who may believe they have one of the conditions but fear that being diagnosed will negatively impact their career. Not disclosing their condition prevents service members from obtaining the clinical care and support they need to succeed and also limits the ability of commanders to make decisions about deployment that ensure maximal unit performance and the safety of the service member.9 However, ADHD is one of 38 diagnoses that the DoD is considering for possible removal or modification of the waiver for some subset of applicants.10

The final irony is that medicine and warfare have changed dramatically and rapidly since the initial determination that diagnoses like ADHD and autism disqualify individuals from serving. A Rand Corporation study found that individuals who are neurodivergent—the name collectively assigned to individuals with diagnoses like autism and ADHD—may have unique abilities that enable them to outperform neurotypical persons in areas like pattern recognition, attention to detail, repetitive tasks, and memory, among others. These highly technical skills are essential to intelligence analysis and cybersecurity domains that are increasingly crucial to both national defense and victory on the battlefield.11 Even congressional representatives who just a few years ago criticized waivers for mental health conditions as “lowering the standards” are now pushing for more moderate policies, especially for those who have received and responded to treatment for their mental health disorders.12

The epigraph has been widely and persistently misattributed to the country’s first commander in chief, George Washington, because it captures a salient sentiment directly bearing on the question of who is fit for duty.1 History has shown that discrimination in enlistment only weakens the fighting force, whereas diversity, including neurodiversity, in the military as in society is a source of strength. Equitable inclusion of those who have the discipline, desire, and dedication to serve their country may be the most positive response to the recruitment crisis.

The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive how the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.

George Washington? 1

This editorial is the second of the 2-part series on the recruitment crisis currently confronting the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Part 1 focused on rationales for the lack of interest or motivation among those potentially eligible to join the military. This column looks at individuals eager to serve who do not meet eligibility requirements. A 2022 article examining the 2020 Qualified Military Available Study found that without a waiver 77% of Americans in the prime recruiting age group 17 to 24 years would be ineligible for the military due to weight, substance use, or mental and physical health conditions. Most young adults met several ineligibility criteria.2

Obesity and substance use are the most common disqualifiers, mirroring the culture at large. Scores of other physical and mental health conditions render an applicant ineligible for military service or require a waiver. The justification of all eligibility criteria is to: (1) ensure that service members can safely and effectively deploy; and (2) reduce the attrition rate. Both are essential to the mission readiness of the military. In 2022, the military gave 1 in 6 of those seeking enlistment an accession waiver.3 About 4% of waivers issued were for mental health conditions, such as autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The response to the recruiting crisis resulted in the largest number of waivers granted in a decade. Military Times noted that exact numbers are hard to obtain, interfering with the transparency of public policy as well as high-quality research on waivers’ impact on recruits and the service.3

The War Horse reported that the current waiver process is riddled with procedural injustice and inequity in implementation.4 Each service sets its eligibility requirements: the rationale being that the respective branches have distinct roles necessitating distinguishing qualifications. What is far more difficult to defend is that wide variation exists in the application of the criteria. Similar cases are judged differently, depending on nonmaterial factors, such as geographic location and unwritten policies of recruiting offices. Waiver approval rates for mental health conditions range from 35% for the Army to 71% for the Marines. The prospective recruit, not the military service, bears the burden of demonstrating that their condition does not impair their fitness for duty; hence, thousands have been disqualified based on their diagnosis.4 This comes at a time when the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the US Department of Defense (DoD) have been battling a suicide epidemic for years. Current qualifying standards send a strong stigmatizing message to those who want to enlist and those already in the ranks at a time the DoD and VA are launching campaigns to persuade active-duty members and veterans to seek mental health treatment.5

The recruiting crisis brought into stark relief more fundamental questions about the clinical and ethical aspects of eligibility criteria that either disqualify outright or require a waiver process for many young Americans with mental health conditions who want to serve their country. One of the most clinically perplexing standards is that applicants with ADHD are disqualified if they have taken medications in the past 12 to 24 months, depending on the service.6 Despite this policy, the Army acknowledges that stimulant medications may improve the function of individuals with ADHD and reduce the rates of substance use and behavior disturbances, the real concerns for recruiters and commanders.7

Requirements like these place otherwise high-functioning individuals whose professional goal is to serve in the military in a double bind. The military’s studies show that recruits’ persistent nondisclosure of their diagnoses results in poorer performance and higher attrition rates of those who have enlisted, even when treated.8 If potential recruits disclose their psychiatric history, they may well be disqualified and/or denied a waiver. This is even more true for service members already in the military who may believe they have one of the conditions but fear that being diagnosed will negatively impact their career. Not disclosing their condition prevents service members from obtaining the clinical care and support they need to succeed and also limits the ability of commanders to make decisions about deployment that ensure maximal unit performance and the safety of the service member.9 However, ADHD is one of 38 diagnoses that the DoD is considering for possible removal or modification of the waiver for some subset of applicants.10

The final irony is that medicine and warfare have changed dramatically and rapidly since the initial determination that diagnoses like ADHD and autism disqualify individuals from serving. A Rand Corporation study found that individuals who are neurodivergent—the name collectively assigned to individuals with diagnoses like autism and ADHD—may have unique abilities that enable them to outperform neurotypical persons in areas like pattern recognition, attention to detail, repetitive tasks, and memory, among others. These highly technical skills are essential to intelligence analysis and cybersecurity domains that are increasingly crucial to both national defense and victory on the battlefield.11 Even congressional representatives who just a few years ago criticized waivers for mental health conditions as “lowering the standards” are now pushing for more moderate policies, especially for those who have received and responded to treatment for their mental health disorders.12

The epigraph has been widely and persistently misattributed to the country’s first commander in chief, George Washington, because it captures a salient sentiment directly bearing on the question of who is fit for duty.1 History has shown that discrimination in enlistment only weakens the fighting force, whereas diversity, including neurodiversity, in the military as in society is a source of strength. Equitable inclusion of those who have the discipline, desire, and dedication to serve their country may be the most positive response to the recruitment crisis.

References

1. George Washington’s Mount Vernon Washington Library. Accessed November 13, 2023. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

2. Novelty T. Even more young Americans are unfit to serve, a new study finds, here’s why. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/09/28/new-pentagon-study-shows-77-of-young-americans-are-ineligible-military-service.html

3. Cohen RS. Need for accession waivers soars amid historic recruiting challenges. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-air-force/2023/04/10/need-for-accession-waivers-soars-amid-historic-recruiting-challenges

4. Barnhill J. The military is missing recruitment goals. Are thousands being disqualified. The War Horse. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://thewarhorse.org/us-military-recruitment-crisis-may-hinge-on-medical-waivers

5. Hauschild V. Army experts: mixed messages can fuel stigma, prevent soldiers from accessing behavioral healthcare. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.army.mil/article/262525/army_experts_mixed_messages_can_fuel_stigma_prevent_soldiers_from_accessing_behavioral_healthcare

6. US Department of Defense. DoD Instructions 6130.03 Volume 1. Section 6, Medical Standards for Military Service: Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction. Updated November 16, 2022. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/613003_vol1.PDF

7. Sayers D, Hu Z, Clark LL. Attrition rates and incidence of mental health disorders in an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) cohort, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2014-2018. MSMR. 2021;28(1):2-8.

8. Woods J. Serving with ADHD. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2022/February/Serving-with-ADHD

9. Thayer RL. Pentagon reviews whether 38 medical conditions should remain as disqualifiers for military service. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-03-07/military-medical-waivers-recruitment-9417905.html

10. Weinbaum C. An autistic soldier wants you to read this. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://mwi.usma.edu/an-autistic-soldier-wants-you-to-read-this

11. Weinbaum C, Khan O, Thomas TD, Stein BD. Neurodiversity and national security. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1875-1.html

12. Myers M. Senators push DoD to approve recruits who have sought mental health care. Accessed November 20, 2023.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/16/senators-push-dod-to-approve-recruits-whove-sought-mental-health-care

References

1. George Washington’s Mount Vernon Washington Library. Accessed November 13, 2023. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/

2. Novelty T. Even more young Americans are unfit to serve, a new study finds, here’s why. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/09/28/new-pentagon-study-shows-77-of-young-americans-are-ineligible-military-service.html

3. Cohen RS. Need for accession waivers soars amid historic recruiting challenges. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-air-force/2023/04/10/need-for-accession-waivers-soars-amid-historic-recruiting-challenges

4. Barnhill J. The military is missing recruitment goals. Are thousands being disqualified. The War Horse. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://thewarhorse.org/us-military-recruitment-crisis-may-hinge-on-medical-waivers

5. Hauschild V. Army experts: mixed messages can fuel stigma, prevent soldiers from accessing behavioral healthcare. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.army.mil/article/262525/army_experts_mixed_messages_can_fuel_stigma_prevent_soldiers_from_accessing_behavioral_healthcare

6. US Department of Defense. DoD Instructions 6130.03 Volume 1. Section 6, Medical Standards for Military Service: Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction. Updated November 16, 2022. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/613003_vol1.PDF

7. Sayers D, Hu Z, Clark LL. Attrition rates and incidence of mental health disorders in an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) cohort, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2014-2018. MSMR. 2021;28(1):2-8.

8. Woods J. Serving with ADHD. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2022/February/Serving-with-ADHD

9. Thayer RL. Pentagon reviews whether 38 medical conditions should remain as disqualifiers for military service. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-03-07/military-medical-waivers-recruitment-9417905.html

10. Weinbaum C. An autistic soldier wants you to read this. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://mwi.usma.edu/an-autistic-soldier-wants-you-to-read-this

11. Weinbaum C, Khan O, Thomas TD, Stein BD. Neurodiversity and national security. Accessed November 20, 2023. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1875-1.html

12. Myers M. Senators push DoD to approve recruits who have sought mental health care. Accessed November 20, 2023.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/16/senators-push-dod-to-approve-recruits-whove-sought-mental-health-care

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(12)a
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(12)a
Page Number
396
Page Number
396
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Narrative medicine: Physician advocacy on the ground

Article Type
Changed

In 2021, when Eric Esrailian, MD, MPH, was awarded the Benemerenti Medal from Pope Francis for his humanitarian work, he recognized other people worldwide who save lives daily – but without recognition. They’re motivated for “the right reasons. To be clear, I do not deserve this honor. It is honestly overwhelming and humbling,” he said in 2021 when news of the award reached him in Los Angeles where he holds the Lincy Foundation Chair in Clinical Gastroenterology at the University of California, Los Angeles. He also serves as chief of the Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, and director of the Melvin and Bren Simon Digestive Diseases Center.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Esrailian
Pope Francis with Dr. Eric Esrailian.

Dr. Esrailian, the son of Armenian immigrants, says that humanitarian work has been ingrained in him since childhood. His great-grandparents were Armenian genocide survivors and their struggles have never left him. He’s devoted his life not only to medicine, but to documenting the history of the Armenian genocide and leading, or supporting, efforts to resolve humanitarian crises in Armenia and around the world. Earlier this year, he, with Kim Kardashian and singer/actor Cher, published op-eds that addressed a humanitarian crisis building as a result of Azerbaijan’s blockade of the Lachin corridor – which is the only road that links Armenia to the ethnic Armenian–populated sections of Nagorno-Karabakh. In September, Armenia and Azerbaijan reached a tentative agreement to end the blockade, but more needs to be done, he says. Tragedies continue to unfold, and he is redoubling his efforts to bring more attention to this humanitarian crisis, he said.

Because storytelling is an important part of raising awareness, in 2016 Dr. Esrailian and partners produced two films about stories of perseverance, endurance, and the inextinguishable fire of the human spirit. The first film was “The Promise,” a historical war drama set in the Ottoman Empire and released in 2016. In 2017, he and partners released “Intent to Destroy: Death, Denial, & Depiction,” a documentary about the Armenian genocide. The documentary received an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Historical Documentary. And, in 2020, he produced “Francesco,” a film about Pope Francis that documented his pilgrimage to Armenia in 2016.

“The Promise” had such an impact on viewers that in 2017 Dr. Esrailian and the UCLA School of Law created The Promise Institute for Human Rights as a center of human rights education, research, and advocacy. In 2019, Dr. Esrailian and UCLA followed up with The Promise Armenian Institute as a place for academic research and teaching of Armenian studies, language, and culture. “The impact from building these two institutes has been transformational, and they will be part of UCLA forever,” he said.

His philanthropic efforts connecting health, human rights, education, and the arts has had an impact worldwide. One person can make a difference, Dr. Esrailian said: “I’ve learned along the way that an individual can have more of an impact than ever imagined, but you have to dream big and never give up.”

In this interview, he tells us more about his work.
 

 

 

Q: Not many doctors wear hats in medicine and filmmaking. Describe your journey as a filmmaker.

Dr. Eric Esrailian

Dr. Esrailian: I’ve always been interested in storytelling. I was an English minor at Berkeley. My late mentor, Kirk Kerkorian, a legendary philanthropist, businessman, and entrepreneur, pushed me to take storytelling and do something that would potentially help secure Armenian Genocide recognition by the United States. Because of genocide denialists and geopolitical pressure, he felt the United States government was reluctant to recognize the Armenian Genocide. He thought having some visual materials for educational and outreach efforts would be transformational, and as it turns out, they were.

If you talk to any advocacy organization that tried for years to get Armenian Genocide recognition, they’d say that both films, “The Promise” (a feature film) and “Intent to Destroy” (a documentary), and the social impact media campaign we launched around them, were influential in moving the needle with legislators in the United States who, 3 years after “The Promise” was released, recognized the genocide. This was followed by the Library of Congress in 2020 and President Biden’s executive branch in 2021.
 

Q: What has been your most rewarding accomplishment?

Dr. Esrailian: Giving a voice to people who don’t have a voice is something that I’m proud of. Sometimes, it’s questionable what impact it may have because we still see atrocities committed all over the world. In September, Azerbaijan completed an ethnic cleansing campaign of Armenians from a region called Artsakh, officially the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Despite having so many relationships with powerful people in government and in high-profile media, and despite our documentaries, op-eds, and interactions with influential leaders on a regular basis, it always feels like it’s not enough. Obviously, the perpetrators are still able to abuse human rights and conduct these campaigns. Nevertheless, I don’t think we should be deterred. Allowing human rights violations to occur with impunity only emboldens perpetrators even more. It takes a long time to bring people to justice through international courts, but it does happen – eventually. That’s something I’m going to continue to work on.
 

Q: What should be the role of physicians in supporting human rights?

Dr. Esrailian: Physicians and health care providers play an important role in human rights. If you look back throughout history, whether it’s the International Committee of the Red Cross, or Doctors Without Borders, or other organizations, physicians and health care professionals are often on the front lines, helping people. Unfortunately, physicians have also been part of human rights violations, like the Holocaust or other genocides. But I do think that in this day and age, with the reputation that physicians have, we can be policy advocates and upstanders in addition to taking care of patients. Telling our stories to the world is important so that people know what’s actually happening on the ground.

Lightning round

Do you prefer texting or talking?  
Talking

How many cups of coffee do you drink each day?
Two

What was the last movie you watched?
Mission Impossible

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?  
Entrepreneur

Who inspires you?  
My family

Publications
Topics
Sections

In 2021, when Eric Esrailian, MD, MPH, was awarded the Benemerenti Medal from Pope Francis for his humanitarian work, he recognized other people worldwide who save lives daily – but without recognition. They’re motivated for “the right reasons. To be clear, I do not deserve this honor. It is honestly overwhelming and humbling,” he said in 2021 when news of the award reached him in Los Angeles where he holds the Lincy Foundation Chair in Clinical Gastroenterology at the University of California, Los Angeles. He also serves as chief of the Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, and director of the Melvin and Bren Simon Digestive Diseases Center.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Esrailian
Pope Francis with Dr. Eric Esrailian.

Dr. Esrailian, the son of Armenian immigrants, says that humanitarian work has been ingrained in him since childhood. His great-grandparents were Armenian genocide survivors and their struggles have never left him. He’s devoted his life not only to medicine, but to documenting the history of the Armenian genocide and leading, or supporting, efforts to resolve humanitarian crises in Armenia and around the world. Earlier this year, he, with Kim Kardashian and singer/actor Cher, published op-eds that addressed a humanitarian crisis building as a result of Azerbaijan’s blockade of the Lachin corridor – which is the only road that links Armenia to the ethnic Armenian–populated sections of Nagorno-Karabakh. In September, Armenia and Azerbaijan reached a tentative agreement to end the blockade, but more needs to be done, he says. Tragedies continue to unfold, and he is redoubling his efforts to bring more attention to this humanitarian crisis, he said.

Because storytelling is an important part of raising awareness, in 2016 Dr. Esrailian and partners produced two films about stories of perseverance, endurance, and the inextinguishable fire of the human spirit. The first film was “The Promise,” a historical war drama set in the Ottoman Empire and released in 2016. In 2017, he and partners released “Intent to Destroy: Death, Denial, & Depiction,” a documentary about the Armenian genocide. The documentary received an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Historical Documentary. And, in 2020, he produced “Francesco,” a film about Pope Francis that documented his pilgrimage to Armenia in 2016.

“The Promise” had such an impact on viewers that in 2017 Dr. Esrailian and the UCLA School of Law created The Promise Institute for Human Rights as a center of human rights education, research, and advocacy. In 2019, Dr. Esrailian and UCLA followed up with The Promise Armenian Institute as a place for academic research and teaching of Armenian studies, language, and culture. “The impact from building these two institutes has been transformational, and they will be part of UCLA forever,” he said.

His philanthropic efforts connecting health, human rights, education, and the arts has had an impact worldwide. One person can make a difference, Dr. Esrailian said: “I’ve learned along the way that an individual can have more of an impact than ever imagined, but you have to dream big and never give up.”

In this interview, he tells us more about his work.
 

 

 

Q: Not many doctors wear hats in medicine and filmmaking. Describe your journey as a filmmaker.

Dr. Eric Esrailian

Dr. Esrailian: I’ve always been interested in storytelling. I was an English minor at Berkeley. My late mentor, Kirk Kerkorian, a legendary philanthropist, businessman, and entrepreneur, pushed me to take storytelling and do something that would potentially help secure Armenian Genocide recognition by the United States. Because of genocide denialists and geopolitical pressure, he felt the United States government was reluctant to recognize the Armenian Genocide. He thought having some visual materials for educational and outreach efforts would be transformational, and as it turns out, they were.

If you talk to any advocacy organization that tried for years to get Armenian Genocide recognition, they’d say that both films, “The Promise” (a feature film) and “Intent to Destroy” (a documentary), and the social impact media campaign we launched around them, were influential in moving the needle with legislators in the United States who, 3 years after “The Promise” was released, recognized the genocide. This was followed by the Library of Congress in 2020 and President Biden’s executive branch in 2021.
 

Q: What has been your most rewarding accomplishment?

Dr. Esrailian: Giving a voice to people who don’t have a voice is something that I’m proud of. Sometimes, it’s questionable what impact it may have because we still see atrocities committed all over the world. In September, Azerbaijan completed an ethnic cleansing campaign of Armenians from a region called Artsakh, officially the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Despite having so many relationships with powerful people in government and in high-profile media, and despite our documentaries, op-eds, and interactions with influential leaders on a regular basis, it always feels like it’s not enough. Obviously, the perpetrators are still able to abuse human rights and conduct these campaigns. Nevertheless, I don’t think we should be deterred. Allowing human rights violations to occur with impunity only emboldens perpetrators even more. It takes a long time to bring people to justice through international courts, but it does happen – eventually. That’s something I’m going to continue to work on.
 

Q: What should be the role of physicians in supporting human rights?

Dr. Esrailian: Physicians and health care providers play an important role in human rights. If you look back throughout history, whether it’s the International Committee of the Red Cross, or Doctors Without Borders, or other organizations, physicians and health care professionals are often on the front lines, helping people. Unfortunately, physicians have also been part of human rights violations, like the Holocaust or other genocides. But I do think that in this day and age, with the reputation that physicians have, we can be policy advocates and upstanders in addition to taking care of patients. Telling our stories to the world is important so that people know what’s actually happening on the ground.

Lightning round

Do you prefer texting or talking?  
Talking

How many cups of coffee do you drink each day?
Two

What was the last movie you watched?
Mission Impossible

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?  
Entrepreneur

Who inspires you?  
My family

In 2021, when Eric Esrailian, MD, MPH, was awarded the Benemerenti Medal from Pope Francis for his humanitarian work, he recognized other people worldwide who save lives daily – but without recognition. They’re motivated for “the right reasons. To be clear, I do not deserve this honor. It is honestly overwhelming and humbling,” he said in 2021 when news of the award reached him in Los Angeles where he holds the Lincy Foundation Chair in Clinical Gastroenterology at the University of California, Los Angeles. He also serves as chief of the Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, and director of the Melvin and Bren Simon Digestive Diseases Center.

Courtesy Dr. Eric Esrailian
Pope Francis with Dr. Eric Esrailian.

Dr. Esrailian, the son of Armenian immigrants, says that humanitarian work has been ingrained in him since childhood. His great-grandparents were Armenian genocide survivors and their struggles have never left him. He’s devoted his life not only to medicine, but to documenting the history of the Armenian genocide and leading, or supporting, efforts to resolve humanitarian crises in Armenia and around the world. Earlier this year, he, with Kim Kardashian and singer/actor Cher, published op-eds that addressed a humanitarian crisis building as a result of Azerbaijan’s blockade of the Lachin corridor – which is the only road that links Armenia to the ethnic Armenian–populated sections of Nagorno-Karabakh. In September, Armenia and Azerbaijan reached a tentative agreement to end the blockade, but more needs to be done, he says. Tragedies continue to unfold, and he is redoubling his efforts to bring more attention to this humanitarian crisis, he said.

Because storytelling is an important part of raising awareness, in 2016 Dr. Esrailian and partners produced two films about stories of perseverance, endurance, and the inextinguishable fire of the human spirit. The first film was “The Promise,” a historical war drama set in the Ottoman Empire and released in 2016. In 2017, he and partners released “Intent to Destroy: Death, Denial, & Depiction,” a documentary about the Armenian genocide. The documentary received an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Historical Documentary. And, in 2020, he produced “Francesco,” a film about Pope Francis that documented his pilgrimage to Armenia in 2016.

“The Promise” had such an impact on viewers that in 2017 Dr. Esrailian and the UCLA School of Law created The Promise Institute for Human Rights as a center of human rights education, research, and advocacy. In 2019, Dr. Esrailian and UCLA followed up with The Promise Armenian Institute as a place for academic research and teaching of Armenian studies, language, and culture. “The impact from building these two institutes has been transformational, and they will be part of UCLA forever,” he said.

His philanthropic efforts connecting health, human rights, education, and the arts has had an impact worldwide. One person can make a difference, Dr. Esrailian said: “I’ve learned along the way that an individual can have more of an impact than ever imagined, but you have to dream big and never give up.”

In this interview, he tells us more about his work.
 

 

 

Q: Not many doctors wear hats in medicine and filmmaking. Describe your journey as a filmmaker.

Dr. Eric Esrailian

Dr. Esrailian: I’ve always been interested in storytelling. I was an English minor at Berkeley. My late mentor, Kirk Kerkorian, a legendary philanthropist, businessman, and entrepreneur, pushed me to take storytelling and do something that would potentially help secure Armenian Genocide recognition by the United States. Because of genocide denialists and geopolitical pressure, he felt the United States government was reluctant to recognize the Armenian Genocide. He thought having some visual materials for educational and outreach efforts would be transformational, and as it turns out, they were.

If you talk to any advocacy organization that tried for years to get Armenian Genocide recognition, they’d say that both films, “The Promise” (a feature film) and “Intent to Destroy” (a documentary), and the social impact media campaign we launched around them, were influential in moving the needle with legislators in the United States who, 3 years after “The Promise” was released, recognized the genocide. This was followed by the Library of Congress in 2020 and President Biden’s executive branch in 2021.
 

Q: What has been your most rewarding accomplishment?

Dr. Esrailian: Giving a voice to people who don’t have a voice is something that I’m proud of. Sometimes, it’s questionable what impact it may have because we still see atrocities committed all over the world. In September, Azerbaijan completed an ethnic cleansing campaign of Armenians from a region called Artsakh, officially the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Despite having so many relationships with powerful people in government and in high-profile media, and despite our documentaries, op-eds, and interactions with influential leaders on a regular basis, it always feels like it’s not enough. Obviously, the perpetrators are still able to abuse human rights and conduct these campaigns. Nevertheless, I don’t think we should be deterred. Allowing human rights violations to occur with impunity only emboldens perpetrators even more. It takes a long time to bring people to justice through international courts, but it does happen – eventually. That’s something I’m going to continue to work on.
 

Q: What should be the role of physicians in supporting human rights?

Dr. Esrailian: Physicians and health care providers play an important role in human rights. If you look back throughout history, whether it’s the International Committee of the Red Cross, or Doctors Without Borders, or other organizations, physicians and health care professionals are often on the front lines, helping people. Unfortunately, physicians have also been part of human rights violations, like the Holocaust or other genocides. But I do think that in this day and age, with the reputation that physicians have, we can be policy advocates and upstanders in addition to taking care of patients. Telling our stories to the world is important so that people know what’s actually happening on the ground.

Lightning round

Do you prefer texting or talking?  
Talking

How many cups of coffee do you drink each day?
Two

What was the last movie you watched?
Mission Impossible

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?  
Entrepreneur

Who inspires you?  
My family

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Making an impact beyond medicine

Article Type
Changed

When we launched GIHN’s monthly Member Spotlight column in January of this year, our vision was to provide a platform to recognize AGA members’ unique accomplishments across all career stages and practice settings, highlight the diversity of our membership, and build a sense of community by learning more about one another.

As physicians, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to meaningfully impact the lives of our patients through the practice of clinical medicine, or by spearheading groundbreaking research that improves patient outcomes. However, some physicians arguably make their greatest mark outside of medicine.

Dr. Megan A. Adams

To close out the inaugural year of our Member Spotlight feature, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Eric Esrailian, MD, MPH, chair of the division of gastroenterology at UCLA. He is an Emmy-nominated film producer and distinguished human rights advocate. His story is inspirational, and poignantly highlights how one’s impact as a physician can extend far beyond the walls of the hospital. We hope to continue to feature exceptional individuals like Dr. Esrailian who leverage their unique talents for societal good. We appreciate your continued nominations as we plan our 2024 coverage.

Also in the December issue, we summarize the results of a pivotal, head-to-head trial of risankizumab (Skyrizi) and ustekinumab (Stelara) for Crohn’s disease, which was presented in October at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week in Copenhagen.

We also highlight the FDA’s recent approval of vonoprazan, a new pharmacologic treatment for erosive esophagitis expected to be available in the U.S. sometime this month. Finally, Dr. Lauren Feld explains how gastroenterologists can advocate for more robust parental leave and return to work policies at their institutions and why it matters.

We wish you all a wonderful holiday season and look forward to seeing you again in the New Year.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Publications
Topics
Sections

When we launched GIHN’s monthly Member Spotlight column in January of this year, our vision was to provide a platform to recognize AGA members’ unique accomplishments across all career stages and practice settings, highlight the diversity of our membership, and build a sense of community by learning more about one another.

As physicians, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to meaningfully impact the lives of our patients through the practice of clinical medicine, or by spearheading groundbreaking research that improves patient outcomes. However, some physicians arguably make their greatest mark outside of medicine.

Dr. Megan A. Adams

To close out the inaugural year of our Member Spotlight feature, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Eric Esrailian, MD, MPH, chair of the division of gastroenterology at UCLA. He is an Emmy-nominated film producer and distinguished human rights advocate. His story is inspirational, and poignantly highlights how one’s impact as a physician can extend far beyond the walls of the hospital. We hope to continue to feature exceptional individuals like Dr. Esrailian who leverage their unique talents for societal good. We appreciate your continued nominations as we plan our 2024 coverage.

Also in the December issue, we summarize the results of a pivotal, head-to-head trial of risankizumab (Skyrizi) and ustekinumab (Stelara) for Crohn’s disease, which was presented in October at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week in Copenhagen.

We also highlight the FDA’s recent approval of vonoprazan, a new pharmacologic treatment for erosive esophagitis expected to be available in the U.S. sometime this month. Finally, Dr. Lauren Feld explains how gastroenterologists can advocate for more robust parental leave and return to work policies at their institutions and why it matters.

We wish you all a wonderful holiday season and look forward to seeing you again in the New Year.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

When we launched GIHN’s monthly Member Spotlight column in January of this year, our vision was to provide a platform to recognize AGA members’ unique accomplishments across all career stages and practice settings, highlight the diversity of our membership, and build a sense of community by learning more about one another.

As physicians, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to meaningfully impact the lives of our patients through the practice of clinical medicine, or by spearheading groundbreaking research that improves patient outcomes. However, some physicians arguably make their greatest mark outside of medicine.

Dr. Megan A. Adams

To close out the inaugural year of our Member Spotlight feature, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Eric Esrailian, MD, MPH, chair of the division of gastroenterology at UCLA. He is an Emmy-nominated film producer and distinguished human rights advocate. His story is inspirational, and poignantly highlights how one’s impact as a physician can extend far beyond the walls of the hospital. We hope to continue to feature exceptional individuals like Dr. Esrailian who leverage their unique talents for societal good. We appreciate your continued nominations as we plan our 2024 coverage.

Also in the December issue, we summarize the results of a pivotal, head-to-head trial of risankizumab (Skyrizi) and ustekinumab (Stelara) for Crohn’s disease, which was presented in October at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week in Copenhagen.

We also highlight the FDA’s recent approval of vonoprazan, a new pharmacologic treatment for erosive esophagitis expected to be available in the U.S. sometime this month. Finally, Dr. Lauren Feld explains how gastroenterologists can advocate for more robust parental leave and return to work policies at their institutions and why it matters.

We wish you all a wonderful holiday season and look forward to seeing you again in the New Year.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article