Practice Management

From T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Dr. Ebekozien, Dr. Odugbesan, and Nicole Rioles); Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (Dr. Majidi); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH (Dr. Jones); and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH (Dr. Kamboj)

Health equity has been described as the opportunity for all persons to obtain their highest level of health possible.¹ Unfortunately, even with advances in technology and care practices, disparities persist in health care outcomes. Disparities in prevalence, prognosis, and outcomes still exist in diabetes management.² Non-Hispanic Black and/or Hispanic populations are more likely to have worse glycemic control,^3,4 to encounter more barriers in access to care,⁵ and to have higher levels of acute complications,⁴ and to use advanced technologies less frequently.⁴ Diabetes is one of the preexisting conditions that increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.^6,7 Unfortunately, adverse outcomes from COVID-19 also disproportionately impact a specific vulnerable population.^8,9 The urgent transition to managing diabetes remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate long-term inequities because some vulnerable patients might not have access to technology devices necessary for effective remote management.

Here, we describe how quality improvement (QI) tools and principles can be adapted into a framework for advancing health equity. Specifically, we describe a 10-step framework that may be applied in diabetes care management to achieve improvement, using a hypothetical example of increasing use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) among patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.¹⁰ This framework was developed to address the literature gap on practical ways health care providers can address inequities using QI principles, and was implemented by 1 of the authors at a local public health department.¹¹ The framework’s iterative and comprehensive design makes it ideal for addressing inequities in chronic diseases like diabetes, which have multiple root causes with no easy solutions. The improvement program pilot received a national model practice award.^11,12

10-Step Framework

Step 1: Review program/project baseline data for existing disparities. Diabetes programs and routine QI processes encourage existing data review to determine how effective the current system is working and if the existing process has a predictable pattern.^13,14 Our equity-revised framework proposes a more in-depth review to stratify baseline data based on factors that might contribute to inequities, including race, age, income levels, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, insurance type, and zip code. This process will identify patients not served or unfairly impacted due to socioeconomic factors. For example, using the hypothetical example of improving CGM use, a team completes a preliminary data review and determines that baseline CGM use is 30% in the clinic population. However, in a review to assess for disparities, they also identify that patients on public insurance have a significantly lower CGM uptake of only 15%.

Step 2: Build an equitable project team, including patients with lived experiences. Routine projects typically have clinicians, administrative staff, and analytic staff as members of their team. In a post-COVID-19 world, every team needs to learn directly from people impacted and share decision-making power. The traditional approach to receiving feedback has generally been to collect responses using surveys or focus groups. We propose that individuals/families who are disproportionately impacted be included as active members on QI teams. For example, in the hypothetical example of the CGM project, team members would include patients with type 1 diabetes who are on public insurance and their families.

Step 3: Develop equity-focused goals. The traditional program involves the development of aims that are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound).¹⁵ The proposed framework encourages the inclusion of equity-revised goals (SMARTer) using insights from Steps 1 and 2. For example, your typical smart goal might be to increase the percentage of patients using CGM by 20% in 6 months, while a SMARTer goal would be to increase the proportion of patients using CGM by 20% and reduce the disparities among public and private insurance patients by 30% in 6 months.

Step 4: Identify inequitable processes/pathways. Traditional QI programs might use a process map or flow diagram to depict the current state of a process visually.¹⁶ For example, in Figure 1, the process map diagram depicts some differences in the process for patients with public insurance as opposed to those with private insurance. The framework also advocates for using visual tools like process maps to depict how there might be inequitable pathways in a system. Visually identifying inequitable processes/pathways can help a team see barriers, address challenges, and pilot innovative solutions.

Step 5: Identify how socioeconomic factors are contributing to the current outcome. A good understanding of factors that contribute to the problem is an essential part of finding fundamental solutions. The fishbone diagram¹⁶ is a visualization tool used to identify contributing factors. When investigating contributing factors, it is commonplace to identify factors that fit into 1 of 5 categories: people, process, place, product, and policies (5 Ps). An equity-focused process will include equity as a new major factor category, and the socioeconomic impacts that contribute to inequities will be brainstormed and visually represented. For example, in the hypothetical CGM improvement example, an equity contributing factor is extensive CGM application paperwork for patients on public insurance as compared to those on private insurance. Figure 2 shows equity integrated into a fishbone diagram.

Step 6: Brainstorm possible improvements. Potential improvement ideas for the hypothetical CGM example might include redesigning the existing workflow, piloting CGM educational classes, and using a CGM barrier assessment tool to identify and address barriers to adoption.

Step 7: Use the decision matrix with equity as a criterion to prioritize improvement ideas. Decision matrix¹⁵ is a great tool that is frequently used to help teams prioritize potential ideas. Project team members must decide what criteria are important in prioritizing ideas to implement. Common criteria include implementation cost, time, and resources, but in addition to the common criteria, the team can specify ”impact on equity” as one of their criteria, alongside other standard criteria like impact.

Step 8: Test one small change at a time. This step is consistent with other traditional improvement models using the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) model for improvement.¹⁷ During this phase, the team should make predictions on the expected impact of the intervention on outcomes. For example, in the hypothetical example, the team predicts that testing and expanding CGM classes will reduce disparities among public versus private health insurance users by 5% and increase overall CGM uptake by 10%.

Step 9: Measure and compare results with predictions to identify inequitable practices or consequences. After each test of change, the team should review the results, including implementation cost considerations, and compare them to the predictions in the earlier step. The team should also document the potential reasons why their predictions were correct or inaccurate, and whether there were any unforeseen outcomes from the intervention.

Step 10: Celebrate small wins and repeat the process. Making fundamental and equitable changes takes time. This framework aimed at undoing inequities, particularly those inequities that have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, is iterative and ongoing.^18,19 Not every test of change will impact the outcome or reduce inequity, but over time, each change will impact the next, generating sustainable effects.

Conclusion

There are ongoing studies examining the adverse outcomes and potential health inequities for patients with diabetes impacted by COVID-19.²⁰ Health care providers need to plan for post-COVID-19 care, keeping in mind that the pandemic might worsen already existing health disparities in diabetes management.^3,4,21 This work will involve an intentional approach to address structural and systemic racism.²² Therefore, the work of building health equity solutions must be rooted in racial justice, economic equity, and equitable access to health care and education.

Initiatives like this are currently being funded through foundation grants as well as state and federal research or program grants. Regional and national payors, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, are currently piloting long-term sustainable funding models through programs like accountable care organizations and the Accountable Health Communities Model.²³

Health systems can successfully address health equity and racial justice, using a framework as described above, to identify determinants of health, develop policies to expand access to care for the most vulnerable patients, distribute decision-making power, and train staff by naming structural racism as a driver of health inequities.

Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the contributions of patients, families, diabetes care teams, and collaborators within the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, who continually seek to improve care and outcomes for people living with diabetes.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, 11 Avenue De La Fayette, Boston, MA 02115; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. No specific funding was received for this manuscript or the development of this framework.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes; quality improvement; QI framework; racial justice; health disparities.

From T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Dr. Ebekozien, Dr. Odugbesan, and Nicole Rioles); Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (Dr. Majidi); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH (Dr. Jones); and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH (Dr. Kamboj)

Health equity has been described as the opportunity for all persons to obtain their highest level of health possible.¹ Unfortunately, even with advances in technology and care practices, disparities persist in health care outcomes. Disparities in prevalence, prognosis, and outcomes still exist in diabetes management.² Non-Hispanic Black and/or Hispanic populations are more likely to have worse glycemic control,^3,4 to encounter more barriers in access to care,⁵ and to have higher levels of acute complications,⁴ and to use advanced technologies less frequently.⁴ Diabetes is one of the preexisting conditions that increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.^6,7 Unfortunately, adverse outcomes from COVID-19 also disproportionately impact a specific vulnerable population.^8,9 The urgent transition to managing diabetes remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate long-term inequities because some vulnerable patients might not have access to technology devices necessary for effective remote management.

Here, we describe how quality improvement (QI) tools and principles can be adapted into a framework for advancing health equity. Specifically, we describe a 10-step framework that may be applied in diabetes care management to achieve improvement, using a hypothetical example of increasing use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) among patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.¹⁰ This framework was developed to address the literature gap on practical ways health care providers can address inequities using QI principles, and was implemented by 1 of the authors at a local public health department.¹¹ The framework’s iterative and comprehensive design makes it ideal for addressing inequities in chronic diseases like diabetes, which have multiple root causes with no easy solutions. The improvement program pilot received a national model practice award.^11,12

10-Step Framework

Step 1: Review program/project baseline data for existing disparities. Diabetes programs and routine QI processes encourage existing data review to determine how effective the current system is working and if the existing process has a predictable pattern.^13,14 Our equity-revised framework proposes a more in-depth review to stratify baseline data based on factors that might contribute to inequities, including race, age, income levels, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, insurance type, and zip code. This process will identify patients not served or unfairly impacted due to socioeconomic factors. For example, using the hypothetical example of improving CGM use, a team completes a preliminary data review and determines that baseline CGM use is 30% in the clinic population. However, in a review to assess for disparities, they also identify that patients on public insurance have a significantly lower CGM uptake of only 15%.

Step 2: Build an equitable project team, including patients with lived experiences. Routine projects typically have clinicians, administrative staff, and analytic staff as members of their team. In a post-COVID-19 world, every team needs to learn directly from people impacted and share decision-making power. The traditional approach to receiving feedback has generally been to collect responses using surveys or focus groups. We propose that individuals/families who are disproportionately impacted be included as active members on QI teams. For example, in the hypothetical example of the CGM project, team members would include patients with type 1 diabetes who are on public insurance and their families.

Step 3: Develop equity-focused goals. The traditional program involves the development of aims that are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound).¹⁵ The proposed framework encourages the inclusion of equity-revised goals (SMARTer) using insights from Steps 1 and 2. For example, your typical smart goal might be to increase the percentage of patients using CGM by 20% in 6 months, while a SMARTer goal would be to increase the proportion of patients using CGM by 20% and reduce the disparities among public and private insurance patients by 30% in 6 months.

Step 4: Identify inequitable processes/pathways. Traditional QI programs might use a process map or flow diagram to depict the current state of a process visually.¹⁶ For example, in Figure 1, the process map diagram depicts some differences in the process for patients with public insurance as opposed to those with private insurance. The framework also advocates for using visual tools like process maps to depict how there might be inequitable pathways in a system. Visually identifying inequitable processes/pathways can help a team see barriers, address challenges, and pilot innovative solutions.

Step 5: Identify how socioeconomic factors are contributing to the current outcome. A good understanding of factors that contribute to the problem is an essential part of finding fundamental solutions. The fishbone diagram¹⁶ is a visualization tool used to identify contributing factors. When investigating contributing factors, it is commonplace to identify factors that fit into 1 of 5 categories: people, process, place, product, and policies (5 Ps). An equity-focused process will include equity as a new major factor category, and the socioeconomic impacts that contribute to inequities will be brainstormed and visually represented. For example, in the hypothetical CGM improvement example, an equity contributing factor is extensive CGM application paperwork for patients on public insurance as compared to those on private insurance. Figure 2 shows equity integrated into a fishbone diagram.

Step 6: Brainstorm possible improvements. Potential improvement ideas for the hypothetical CGM example might include redesigning the existing workflow, piloting CGM educational classes, and using a CGM barrier assessment tool to identify and address barriers to adoption.

Step 7: Use the decision matrix with equity as a criterion to prioritize improvement ideas. Decision matrix¹⁵ is a great tool that is frequently used to help teams prioritize potential ideas. Project team members must decide what criteria are important in prioritizing ideas to implement. Common criteria include implementation cost, time, and resources, but in addition to the common criteria, the team can specify ”impact on equity” as one of their criteria, alongside other standard criteria like impact.

Step 8: Test one small change at a time. This step is consistent with other traditional improvement models using the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) model for improvement.¹⁷ During this phase, the team should make predictions on the expected impact of the intervention on outcomes. For example, in the hypothetical example, the team predicts that testing and expanding CGM classes will reduce disparities among public versus private health insurance users by 5% and increase overall CGM uptake by 10%.

Step 9: Measure and compare results with predictions to identify inequitable practices or consequences. After each test of change, the team should review the results, including implementation cost considerations, and compare them to the predictions in the earlier step. The team should also document the potential reasons why their predictions were correct or inaccurate, and whether there were any unforeseen outcomes from the intervention.

Step 10: Celebrate small wins and repeat the process. Making fundamental and equitable changes takes time. This framework aimed at undoing inequities, particularly those inequities that have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, is iterative and ongoing.^18,19 Not every test of change will impact the outcome or reduce inequity, but over time, each change will impact the next, generating sustainable effects.

Conclusion

There are ongoing studies examining the adverse outcomes and potential health inequities for patients with diabetes impacted by COVID-19.²⁰ Health care providers need to plan for post-COVID-19 care, keeping in mind that the pandemic might worsen already existing health disparities in diabetes management.^3,4,21 This work will involve an intentional approach to address structural and systemic racism.²² Therefore, the work of building health equity solutions must be rooted in racial justice, economic equity, and equitable access to health care and education.

Initiatives like this are currently being funded through foundation grants as well as state and federal research or program grants. Regional and national payors, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, are currently piloting long-term sustainable funding models through programs like accountable care organizations and the Accountable Health Communities Model.²³

Health systems can successfully address health equity and racial justice, using a framework as described above, to identify determinants of health, develop policies to expand access to care for the most vulnerable patients, distribute decision-making power, and train staff by naming structural racism as a driver of health inequities.

Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the contributions of patients, families, diabetes care teams, and collaborators within the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, who continually seek to improve care and outcomes for people living with diabetes.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, 11 Avenue De La Fayette, Boston, MA 02115; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. No specific funding was received for this manuscript or the development of this framework.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes; quality improvement; QI framework; racial justice; health disparities.

From T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Dr. Ebekozien, Dr. Odugbesan, and Nicole Rioles); Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (Dr. Majidi); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH (Dr. Jones); and Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH (Dr. Kamboj)

Health equity has been described as the opportunity for all persons to obtain their highest level of health possible.¹ Unfortunately, even with advances in technology and care practices, disparities persist in health care outcomes. Disparities in prevalence, prognosis, and outcomes still exist in diabetes management.² Non-Hispanic Black and/or Hispanic populations are more likely to have worse glycemic control,^3,4 to encounter more barriers in access to care,⁵ and to have higher levels of acute complications,⁴ and to use advanced technologies less frequently.⁴ Diabetes is one of the preexisting conditions that increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.^6,7 Unfortunately, adverse outcomes from COVID-19 also disproportionately impact a specific vulnerable population.^8,9 The urgent transition to managing diabetes remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate long-term inequities because some vulnerable patients might not have access to technology devices necessary for effective remote management.

Here, we describe how quality improvement (QI) tools and principles can be adapted into a framework for advancing health equity. Specifically, we describe a 10-step framework that may be applied in diabetes care management to achieve improvement, using a hypothetical example of increasing use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) among patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.¹⁰ This framework was developed to address the literature gap on practical ways health care providers can address inequities using QI principles, and was implemented by 1 of the authors at a local public health department.¹¹ The framework’s iterative and comprehensive design makes it ideal for addressing inequities in chronic diseases like diabetes, which have multiple root causes with no easy solutions. The improvement program pilot received a national model practice award.^11,12

10-Step Framework

Step 1: Review program/project baseline data for existing disparities. Diabetes programs and routine QI processes encourage existing data review to determine how effective the current system is working and if the existing process has a predictable pattern.^13,14 Our equity-revised framework proposes a more in-depth review to stratify baseline data based on factors that might contribute to inequities, including race, age, income levels, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, insurance type, and zip code. This process will identify patients not served or unfairly impacted due to socioeconomic factors. For example, using the hypothetical example of improving CGM use, a team completes a preliminary data review and determines that baseline CGM use is 30% in the clinic population. However, in a review to assess for disparities, they also identify that patients on public insurance have a significantly lower CGM uptake of only 15%.

Step 2: Build an equitable project team, including patients with lived experiences. Routine projects typically have clinicians, administrative staff, and analytic staff as members of their team. In a post-COVID-19 world, every team needs to learn directly from people impacted and share decision-making power. The traditional approach to receiving feedback has generally been to collect responses using surveys or focus groups. We propose that individuals/families who are disproportionately impacted be included as active members on QI teams. For example, in the hypothetical example of the CGM project, team members would include patients with type 1 diabetes who are on public insurance and their families.

Step 3: Develop equity-focused goals. The traditional program involves the development of aims that are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound).¹⁵ The proposed framework encourages the inclusion of equity-revised goals (SMARTer) using insights from Steps 1 and 2. For example, your typical smart goal might be to increase the percentage of patients using CGM by 20% in 6 months, while a SMARTer goal would be to increase the proportion of patients using CGM by 20% and reduce the disparities among public and private insurance patients by 30% in 6 months.

Step 4: Identify inequitable processes/pathways. Traditional QI programs might use a process map or flow diagram to depict the current state of a process visually.¹⁶ For example, in Figure 1, the process map diagram depicts some differences in the process for patients with public insurance as opposed to those with private insurance. The framework also advocates for using visual tools like process maps to depict how there might be inequitable pathways in a system. Visually identifying inequitable processes/pathways can help a team see barriers, address challenges, and pilot innovative solutions.

Step 5: Identify how socioeconomic factors are contributing to the current outcome. A good understanding of factors that contribute to the problem is an essential part of finding fundamental solutions. The fishbone diagram¹⁶ is a visualization tool used to identify contributing factors. When investigating contributing factors, it is commonplace to identify factors that fit into 1 of 5 categories: people, process, place, product, and policies (5 Ps). An equity-focused process will include equity as a new major factor category, and the socioeconomic impacts that contribute to inequities will be brainstormed and visually represented. For example, in the hypothetical CGM improvement example, an equity contributing factor is extensive CGM application paperwork for patients on public insurance as compared to those on private insurance. Figure 2 shows equity integrated into a fishbone diagram.

Step 6: Brainstorm possible improvements. Potential improvement ideas for the hypothetical CGM example might include redesigning the existing workflow, piloting CGM educational classes, and using a CGM barrier assessment tool to identify and address barriers to adoption.

Step 7: Use the decision matrix with equity as a criterion to prioritize improvement ideas. Decision matrix¹⁵ is a great tool that is frequently used to help teams prioritize potential ideas. Project team members must decide what criteria are important in prioritizing ideas to implement. Common criteria include implementation cost, time, and resources, but in addition to the common criteria, the team can specify ”impact on equity” as one of their criteria, alongside other standard criteria like impact.

Step 8: Test one small change at a time. This step is consistent with other traditional improvement models using the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) model for improvement.¹⁷ During this phase, the team should make predictions on the expected impact of the intervention on outcomes. For example, in the hypothetical example, the team predicts that testing and expanding CGM classes will reduce disparities among public versus private health insurance users by 5% and increase overall CGM uptake by 10%.

Step 9: Measure and compare results with predictions to identify inequitable practices or consequences. After each test of change, the team should review the results, including implementation cost considerations, and compare them to the predictions in the earlier step. The team should also document the potential reasons why their predictions were correct or inaccurate, and whether there were any unforeseen outcomes from the intervention.

Step 10: Celebrate small wins and repeat the process. Making fundamental and equitable changes takes time. This framework aimed at undoing inequities, particularly those inequities that have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, is iterative and ongoing.^18,19 Not every test of change will impact the outcome or reduce inequity, but over time, each change will impact the next, generating sustainable effects.

Conclusion

There are ongoing studies examining the adverse outcomes and potential health inequities for patients with diabetes impacted by COVID-19.²⁰ Health care providers need to plan for post-COVID-19 care, keeping in mind that the pandemic might worsen already existing health disparities in diabetes management.^3,4,21 This work will involve an intentional approach to address structural and systemic racism.²² Therefore, the work of building health equity solutions must be rooted in racial justice, economic equity, and equitable access to health care and education.

Initiatives like this are currently being funded through foundation grants as well as state and federal research or program grants. Regional and national payors, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, are currently piloting long-term sustainable funding models through programs like accountable care organizations and the Accountable Health Communities Model.²³

Health systems can successfully address health equity and racial justice, using a framework as described above, to identify determinants of health, develop policies to expand access to care for the most vulnerable patients, distribute decision-making power, and train staff by naming structural racism as a driver of health inequities.

Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the contributions of patients, families, diabetes care teams, and collaborators within the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, who continually seek to improve care and outcomes for people living with diabetes.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, 11 Avenue De La Fayette, Boston, MA 02115; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. No specific funding was received for this manuscript or the development of this framework.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes; quality improvement; QI framework; racial justice; health disparities.

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

Cynthia H. Moran, MD, has a medical degree, a passion for treating the elderly, and a desire to work. What she doesn’t have is a job or hopes of getting one anytime soon.

The Houston physician has never been charged with a crime, but she did run afoul of the Texas Medical Board, an experience she said has left her destitute and virtually unemployable in the medical field.

“By the time the board gets through with you, you will be bankrupt and have nothing,” she said.

Dr. Moran has a long, tangled history with the board involving self-prescribing, opioid abuse, depression, and unprofessional conduct. After years of license suspension, drug testing, additional CME, substance abuse treatment, and work restrictions, her supervision by the board ended in 2019, but she has been largely unable to find work as a physician.

“I feel like a felon. I really understand what it’s like to be someone who does their time but then can’t get a job, can’t get an apartment. It’s in your record and there’s nothing you can do about it,” she said.

Although Dr. Moran largely created her own troubles, her experience shows the power state medical licensing boards have when it comes to disciplining physicians.
 

Reprimands to revocations

Many physicians think of their state medical boards as simply the bodies that issue their medical licenses, but the boards have other functions, including investigating complaints against licensed medical professionals and sometimes disciplining them.

According to 2017 statistics from the Federation of State Medical Boards (the most recent available), state boards took 8,813 actions that year. These included 796 suspensions, 764 probations, 570 surrendered licenses, and 264 revoked licenses.

Boards also can order doctors to enter state-run physician health plans to receive treatment for substance abuse, or they can allow physicians to practice only under the supervision of colleagues.

Although they vary by state, the boards are fundamentally similar. Members are appointed by the governor. A majority of them are physicians, and the remainder are nonmedical professionals. Their investigators, often retired law enforcement officials, have broad powers to collect evidence, including medical records. Their authority is backed by the state attorney general.

Although physicians tend to worry more about being sued for malpractice, a medical board investigation can be more worrisome, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an ED physician and attorney in Illinois who has represented doctors before that state’s board. Board disciplinary actions outnumber malpractice awards by four to one in that state.

“The gravity of this is something that many physicians don’t understand,” he said.
 

You can be the subject of anonymous complaints and investigations

Anyone can file a complaint against a physician with a state board. The grievances can be about anything from a crowded waiting room to physician impairment.

Of course, the most trivial complaints (out-of-date magazines in the waiting room) are dismissed out of hand, but boards have the authority to investigate whatever it chooses. The most common investigations center around complaints of impairment, substance abuse, improper prescribing, faulty medical records, mental and physical health problems, and standard of care. Boards also will act if a physician is found guilty of a crime or misconduct unrelated to his or her medical practice.

“There are a lot of ways doctors get into trouble,” said Edward Dauer, MD, a radiologist who served on the Florida board for 11 years.

Investigations often expand beyond their original scope into all aspects of a practice. “Once you’re on their radar, they can find something,” Dr. Sullivan said.

All punitive actions taken by state boards are reported to the Department of Health & Human Services’ National Practitioner Data Bank, which is accessible to all state boards. Sanctioned physicians who set up practice in another state often find that their new home has adopted the sanctions leveled by the original state, something boards can do without conducting their own investigations.

“For doctors, discipline is forever. It never goes off your record,” Dr. Dauer said.

In addition, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers can exclude disciplined physicians, which can cripple a practice’s finances. So what can doctors do to avoid problems with the boards?
 

Don’t do anything wrong

That sounds glib and obvious, but many physicians get into trouble by unwittingly violating state medical regulations regarding such things as CME, insurance requirements, failure to notify the board of address changes, and personal relationships with current or former patients.

“The best advice to avoid these issues is to do a Google search for the Medical Practice Act in the state in which they practice,” said Dr. Sullivan. He noted that doctors should regularly check for changes in regulations.

Keeping on good terms with colleagues and patients also helps, he said, noting that many complaints stem from personal disputes and grievances.

But what if a physician becomes the subject of an investigation? What should they do?
 

Take any complaint seriously

Too many physicians dismiss investigations initially. “Some people have the wrong idea that if they ignore it, it will go away. It won’t go away,” Dr. Sullivan said.

Whether the initial contact comes through a letter or a visit from a board investigator, it should be treated with urgency. Ohio attorney Beth Collis said one client angrily scrawled one-word answers with a Sharpie on the questionnaire he was mailed – answers he was stuck defending throughout the rest of the investigation. Other doctors have ordered investigators out of their offices – another mistake. Failure to cooperate can result in an immediate license suspension.

“They should be speaking to these investigators like they were talking to a highway patrolman on the side of the road. They hold all the cards,” said Ms. Collis, who specializes in representing professionals before licensing boards.

Some physicians mistakenly assume that because their state board is made up mostly of fellow doctors, they will be able to make a complaint go away with some collegial chat.

Not so. “Medical board members see themselves as protecting the public. They’re very punitive,” Ms. Collis said.

At one time, state boards might have been lax in their supervision of physicians, but that changed in the 1980s when the watchdog group Public Citizen began ranking state medical boards by how effective they were in policing doctors.

Public Citizen used FSMB data on serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 doctors in each state to calculate its rankings, a practice that FSMB called incomplete and a misuse of its statistics. Nonetheless, the annual rankings generated a lot of publicity critical of state boards and might have spurred a tougher approach by regulators.

Public Citizen stopped publishing its annual rankings in 2013 after FSMB ceased supplying the data, but the get-tough approach remains, lawyers said.

About 95% of complaints are dismissed with nothing more serious than a letter to the doctor, but boards don’t hesitate to act when the misconduct is serious, said Dr. Dauer. “I felt it was my obligation to protect the public.”
 

Don’t try to fix it yourself

Although many complaints are anonymous, doctors can often figure out what or who it involves. Their impulse might be to contact a patient who complained, correct a medical record, or otherwise try to resolve the matter personally.

It’s better to leave things alone, the experts said. Don’t contact a patient. Give the board access to whatever information it asks for, but don’t alter anything, particularly medical records. “That’s how you’re going to get your license revoked,” Dr. Dauer said. He noted that when doctors add notations to records, they must date them.
 

Hire a lawyer

Many physicians assume they can resolve the complaint easily by explaining themselves to the board or investigators, or they don’t realize their license or practice could be at stake.

They’re better off letting a lawyer speak for them. Attorneys knowledgeable in this realm specialize in representing licensed professionals before regulatory boards and have the greatest knowledge of administrative law and how to negotiate the hearings and procedures.

Typically, a hearing is held before a subcommittee of the board, which can recommend a settlement to the full panel. Cases in which a settlement is not reached can go before the entire board.

Although full hearings can be similar to a trial, there are crucial differences regarding evidentiary rules and other matters, Ms. Collis said. For example, in Ohio, defendant physicians do not get to see the board’s full case against them before the hearing, which can make preparing a defense difficult. And the standard for burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, as in civil suits, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial.

Cases that go to full hearings and beyond to appeals in state courts can take years to resolve, and a physician’s license can be suspended for the duration.
 

Get help before it’s too late

Physicians looking for support and advice can turn to organizations such as the Coalition for Physician Rights, an organization formed in 2018 by Kernan Manion, MD, a former psychiatrist who was forced to deactivate his license after an investigation by the North Carolina medical board.

The Coalition for Physician Rights has advised hundreds of physicians, most of whom he said come to him once they realize they’re in over their heads. “Almost everyone comes in too late,” Dr. Manion said. “They’re sitting ducks. They don’t know how to respond.”

In addition to offering advice and support, the Coalition for Physician Rights lobbies for reform in how boards operate. A number of states, including Oklahoma, have made reforms in recent years.

The appointed boards are too reliant on their administration and staff and usually rubber-stamp disciplinary recommendations, Dr. Manion said. He also criticized the boards’ lack of accountability: “A board operates without external or internal oversight. It is an autonomous entity operating on its own.”

As for Dr. Moran, at age 61, she’s interviewing for physician jobs around the country, refusing to give up medicine.

“What else can I do?” she said. “It’s what I’ve done my entire life. It’s what I went to school for. I don’t know how to do anything else.”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the bottom lines of many private practices, prompting physician-owners to seriously contemplate selling.

Physician-owners have had to sell at lower prices, reflecting lower cash flow under COVID-19. But sales prices may rebound following news on Nov. 9 that a COVID-19 vaccine candidate produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, may be ready for initial distribution before the end of the year.

“There are a lot of ifs still, but if things go according to expectations, we may see an increase in the value of practices,” said Mark O. Dietrich, a CPA in Framingham, Mass., who deals mostly with valuations of physician practices.

“Practice valuations have been lower because many patients have kept away and cash flow has been reduced,” Mr. Dietrich said. “But once patients feel safe, that barrier would be removed, and cash flow, which sales prices are generally based on, could rise. However, this may take a while. One major hurdle would be getting people to take the vaccine.”
 

Many doctors have been contemplating closing

The nation is currently undergoing a significant spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations, which could prompt another COVID-19–related downturn in practice volume, as occurred earlier in the year. That downturn forced many private practitioners to contemplate selling their practices.

In a survey released this summer by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent physicians reported that they were worried about their practices surviving. Although many physicians have now reopened their offices, patient volume is reduced, and physicians are earning far less than before.

“In many cases, physicians who had been considering retirement in the next few years have moved their planning up and want to sell as soon as possible,” said John D. Fanburg, an attorney at Brach Eichler, a law firm in Roseland, N.J., who specializes in medical practice sales and mergers.

“For physicians over age 65, it’s not just worries about finances; it’s also worries about the health risks of staying open,” Mr. Fanburg added.

Mid-career physicians are also selling their practices. Many of them become employees of the hospital, large practice, or private-equity firm that bought the practice – receiving a level of compensation set by the sales agreement.
 

Will your practice be hard to sell?

With so many physicians ready to sell, are there enough potential buyers to acquire them all? Probably not, said Mr. Dietrich.

“Many hospitals may not need new practices right now,” he said. “In the depths of the pandemic, they furloughed many of their existing doctors and may not have brought all of them back yet.”

In fact, because of the pandemic, some buyers have delayed sales that were already in progress, said Monica H. Kaden, director of business valuations at Sobel Valuations, based in Livingston, N.J.

“Buyers are not only worried about their own cash flow but also about the possibility of lower revenues of the selling practices due to COVID-19,” she said, citing a very large multispecialty group that has put its purchase of a another large multispecialty group on hold.
 

Practice values have (temporarily) fallen

Many potential buyers are still looking, though. One thing that drives them is the possibility of discounted sales because of COVID-19. “The sense I get is that a lot of hospitals see this as an opportunity to pick up practices on the cheap,” Mr. Dietrich said.

COVID-19 has been reducing practice values somewhat, said Reed Tinsley, a CPA in Houston who performs medical practice valuations and runs a practice brokerage firm. “Practice revenues and net income are lower under COVID-19, so prices are lower.”

Ms. Kadan advised physicians to hold off selling if they can afford to wait. “It’s always best to sell when the practice volume looks the best, because then the practice is worth more. But there are doctors who can’t wait because revenues are really falling and they are running out of money. They may have no choice but to sell.”

Even in the best of times, not all practices can be sold, said Sean Tinsley, a broker and licensed financial adviser at Tinsley Medical Practice Brokers in Austin, Tex., which he runs with his father, Reed Tinsley.

“We turn down about as many deals to sell practices as we accept,” he said. “Brokers have to be very selective because we don’t get paid until the practice gets sold. Generally, we won’t take practices in rural areas or practices that still only have a fraction of their pre–COVID-19 volume.”
 

How long will it take to sell your practice?

Some practices find a buyer within weeks, but in other cases, it can take as long as a year, he said. Once the buyer is located, preparing the paperwork for the sale can take 45-60 days.

Doctors can sell their practices on their own, but a broker can help them find potential buyers and select the right price. Business brokers generally receive a greater percentage of the sales price than residential brokers. They have greater command of business and finance, and the sale is more complex than a residential sale.

The broker may also help with selling the building where the practice is located, which is usually a separate sale, said Bruce E. Wood, an attorney at CCB Law in Syracuse, N.Y., who deals with practice sales. “A hospital buying your practice may not want to buy the building, so it has to be sold separately. You can always sell the space to a different buyer.”
 

What’s the right price for your practice?

For small practices, brokers often set a price by establishing a multiple, such as two times net earnings, Sean Tinsley said. In many cases, practices haven’t retained net earnings, so the broker uses gross annual revenue and sets the price at 50%-55% of that figure.

An alternative that is widely used in the business world and for many large practices is to base the price on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). To determine a price, the EBITDA is then multiplied by a particular multiple, which depends on the perceived value of the practice.

Higher multiples go to practices that have a qualified management team, have documented financial policies and procedures, or have had significant past growth. Generally, the multiple of EBITDA at smaller practices is 1 or 2; larger practices have a multiple of 5-7 times EBITDA, Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has had the effect of reducing the multiple somewhat. “As market forces shift from a seller’s market to a buyer’s market, multiples will likely remain below pre–COVID-19 levels for the remainder of 2020 and the first half of 2021,” one report stated.

Certified valuators like Reed Tinsley have more complex ways to establish the value of a practice, but as a broker, Sean Tinsley tends to use the multiples approach. He asserted that the prices derived from this method are on the mark. “Almost all the time we sell at the asking price.”
 

Using valuations to set the price

A more complex and expensive way to set a price for a practice is to order a valuation of the practice. The valuator issues a report that runs dozens of pages and costs thousands of dollars.

Mr. Fanburg said that very few physicians selling practices order valuation reports, owing to the cost and complexity. As a result, “they don’t have a clear idea what their practices are worth.”

A comprehensive report is called a conclusion of value. The amount it finds – expressed as a range – is called “fair market value.” The report can be used in the courts for legal disputes as well as for deriving a sales price.

Practices that don’t want to pay for a conclusion of value can ask a valuator to assemble a less extensive report, called an opinion of calculated value. Also known as a calculation engagement or engagement letter, it still costs several thousand dollars.

This report has limited validity and can’t be used in the courts, according to Jarrod Barraza, a certified valuator in the Nashville, Tenn., office of Horne, a health care business valuator. “When I issue an engagement letter, I am not talking as an appraiser but as a valuation consultant, and I don’t call the result fair market value; it’s only estimating,” he said.

For all of the precision of formal reports, however, valuations of a practice can vary widely, according to Reed Tinsley. “Two valuations using the same methodology can differ by $300,000.”

Also, the valuation can be well above a reasonable asking price, said Sean Tinsley. “The market dictates the price. A traditional valuation almost invariably quotes a higher return than the market is willing to pay.”
 

Buyers’ valuations

Physicians who decide not to get a valuation still have to deal with valuations ordered by buyers. Hospitals and large practices often order valuations of the practices they want to buy, and private-equity firms use methods much like a valuation for the practices they are interested in.

Buyers rarely share the valuation report with the seller, so the seller has to accept the buyer’s price without being able to review the thought process behind it, Mr. Fanburg said. “Relying on the buyer to tell you what you’re worth means you may sell your practice well below its true value.”

When the buyer orders a valuation, the valuator interviews managers of the practice and asks for a great deal of information, says G. Don Barbo, managing director at VMG Health, a health care valuation firm based in Dallas.

Mr. Barbo said these documents include financial statements for the practice, usually going back 3-5 years; productivity reports for doctors and other providers; accounts receivables; reports of fixed assets; a roster of employees; employment agreements and management services agreements; reports on payer mix; facility leases and equipment lease agreements; budgets and projections; and tax returns.

Mr. Dietrich said valuators hone in on the practice’s current procedural terminology codes. “If the practice is coding too high, this would artificially increase the profit and purported value of the practice. For example, coding at 99214 rather than 99213 for an established patient means that the practice is being paid 45% more for each visit.” The valuator then reduces the value of the practice on the basis of the extent of the improper up-coding.

Mr. Barbo said some sellers don’t want all the scrutiny of the buyer’s valuation and just sell the practice’s tangible assets – furnishings, fixtures, and equipment – which do not require a great deal of documentation but yield a much lower price.
 

A primer on valuations

As a valuator, “my job is to project into the future,” Mr. Barraza said. “I am trying to see how the practice will fare going forward.”

Mr. Dietrich agreed, with one caveat: “As Yogi Berra said: ‘It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.’ ”

The formal valuation assesses the practice in three ways: measuring income, assets, and what other practices sell for, called the market approach.

With the income approach, the most used measurement for practices, one tries to determine future income, which is what buyers are most interested in, Mr. Dietrich said. The income equals revenue (total collections) minus operating expenses and overhead.

“You are then left with all the money the physician is paid,” he said. “The issue is, how much is attributed to the physician’s own labor and how much to his or her ownership of the practice? This second category helps determine the value of the practice.”

The market approach is often used as a way to double-check the accuracy of the income approach. The appraiser looks for the prices of similar practices that have already been sold and then adjusts the price on the basis of differences with the practice up for sale.

The asset approach may be used when the practice has no positive cash flow. It establishes a price for tangible assets, which are often much lower in value than the values that the other approaches come up with. The asset approach can be a lower-priced alternative for practices that can’t be measured under the income or market approach.

“Equipment appraisers can do an inventory of your equipment,” Mr. Wood said. “Generally, equipment that is more than 3 years old, such as computers, is not that valuable, but an ultrasound machine probably has some resale value.”
 

Will the buyer pay for goodwill?

Many practice owners hope they can get money for the “goodwill” of their practice when they sell. Goodwill basically represents the reputation of the practice, which is difficult to pinpoint, and Mr. Wood said buyers often don’t want to pay for it.

“The goodwill is a wild card,” Mr. Wood said. “It can range from zero to crazy numbers. There is a Goodwill Registry – a list of the goodwill in other practice sales – that you can consult.”

One simple way to calculate the goodwill, he said, is to take the value of the practice based on examining income and remove the value of tangible assets. What is left is considered the goodwill.

Another form of intangible asset that is sometimes lumped together with goodwill is the value of the practice’s trained staff. “Some buyers agree to pay for the staff in place, because they plan to use that staff,” Ms. Kadan said. In one large deal she was involved with, the buyer agreed to pay something for the selling practice’s staff of 180 people.

Another item that buyers also do not typically pay for is the practice’s accounts receivable. They may also not pay for any liabilities the practice holds, such as the facility lease, equipment lease, and maintenance contracts, Mr. Barbo said. “The buyer then often stipulates that all liabilities are left to the practice, or stipulates any specific liabilities that it may assume.”
 

Selling to other doctors

Doctors can sell practices or shares in practices to other doctors. A retiring physician, for example, can sell his or her share to the other partners. A valuator may be brought in to establish the value of the doctor’s equity interest in the practice.

“Generally, practice buyouts aren’t lucrative for selling physician,” Mr. Wood said. “There are exceptions, of course, such as specialty practices in some cases.”

A practice can also be sold to a new doctor or to a previously employed physician who wants to be an owner. These physicians usually need to get a bank loan to buy the practice.

The bank assesses the finances of the selling practice to determine whether the buying physician will earn enough money to pay back the loan. “Banks don’t want lend more than the gross annual revenue of the practice, and some banks will only lend at 65% of gross annual revenue,” Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has seriously affected banks’ lending decisions. Banks stopped lending to practice buyers at the beginning of the pandemic, and when they started lending again, they were more cautious, Sean Tinsley said. “Generally, banks want to see the practice at 85%-90% of pre–COVID-19 numbers before they make a loan.”

He added that, if a buyer can’t get a bank loan, the selling doctor may decide to finance the sale. The buyer agrees to a payment schedule to pay off the full price over several years.
 

Selling to or merging with other practices

The usual buyer is another practice, Reed Tinsley said. “You can sell to a group, but prices are low because, with COVID-19, buyers don’t want to incur a lot of money up front. Or you can merge with the practice, which means the selling doctor usually doesn’t get any money, but he does get a share in the larger practice. In that case, the partnership is the object of value, and it can be cashed out when the physician leaves the practice.”

Mergers can get very complicated. Mr. Fanburg said he has been working with seven groups that are merging into one. “The merger was scheduled to go live last January, but it was slowed down over negotiations about new managed care contracts and putting together a management structure, plus the groups were a little wary of each other. Now the deal is scheduled to go live next January.”

One advantage to selling to a larger entity, such as a big group practice or a hospital, is that the selling physician benefits from the higher reimbursement rates that large providers usually command. “If the buyer has more favorable reimbursement rates with insurers, it could pay the selling doctor much more than he is making now,” Mr. Barraza said.
 

Hospitals as buyers

Because of COVID-19, currently many hospitals don’t have money to buy more practices. However, this is most likely a temporary situation.

Hospitals typically offer less money than other buyers, according to Sean Tinsley. “We have never sold to a hospital, because hospitals generally don’t pay for goodwill. They pay for the practice assets and offer a dollar amount for each chart.”

Hospitals have to be careful not to pay physicians more than the usual amount for their practices, because the extra amount could be seen as a kickback for referrals, which would violate the federal Stark law and Anti-Kickback Statute. Not-for-profit hospitals also have to comply with regulations at the Internal Revenue Service.

Hospitals usually require that the selling physician continue to work in the practice after it is sold. The selling physician’s presence helps ensure that the practice’s output will not decline after sale. Although the sales price may be low, the hospital may make up for it by paying a higher compensation, Sean Tinsley said.
 

Selling to private-equity firms

Private-equity purchases are financed by investors who essentially want to “flip” practices – that is, they want to make them more profitable and then sell them to someone else. The private-equity firm starts by buying a “platform” practice, which forms the core of the venture. It then buys smaller practices that will be managed by the platform practice.

The number of private-equity deals increased continually through 2019, then plummeted in March because of COVID-19, but by the summer, activity began to rise again.

Physicians are very intrigued about selling to private-equity firms because they are known to pay the most for practices. But private-equity buyers focus on a fairly narrow group of specialties.

Generally, Sean Tinsley said, private-equity firms only look for pain, dermatology, and ophthalmology practices, but they have been starting to branch out to specialties such as gastroenterology. In 2018, there were only two private-equity deals for gastroenterology practices, but in 2019, there were 16, according to one assessment.

Private-equity firms buy very few of the practices they initially review, according to Mr. Fanburg. “Private equity negotiates with dozens or even hundreds of physician practices at a time, with only 1%-5% of those practices actually being acquired.”

The private-equity firm’s upfront payment to selling physicians is quite high, but then the physicians become employees of the new group and earn much less in compensation than they earned on this own.

“In order for the venture to get any value out of the acquisition, the doctors have to make less going forward than they did historically,” Mr. Dietrich said. That freed-up money boosts the value of the venture.

When the platform practice is sold – usually after 5 years or so – “chances are the management team will be replaced,” Mr. Fanburg said. “There could be new policies and objectives, which could mean a bumpy ride for physicians.”
 

Do you really want to sell?

“When a group of physicians comes to me asking for help selling their practice, my first question is, Why are you doing this?” Mr. Fanburg said. “You need a better reason for selling than just the money.

“Once you make the leap, there is a certain amount of autonomy you lose,” he continued. “The sale gives you an economic boost, but it may not be enough for the long haul. If you stay on with the buyer, your compensation is often lower. That makes sense if you’re retiring, but not if you’re a younger physician with many years of practice in the years ahead.

“When physicians say they see no other way out except to sell,” Mr. Fanburg said, “I tell them that their buyer will see a path to future growth for your practice. If you think reimbursements are getting worse, why are the buyers pressing ahead?”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the bottom lines of many private practices, prompting physician-owners to seriously contemplate selling.

Physician-owners have had to sell at lower prices, reflecting lower cash flow under COVID-19. But sales prices may rebound following news on Nov. 9 that a COVID-19 vaccine candidate produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, may be ready for initial distribution before the end of the year.

“There are a lot of ifs still, but if things go according to expectations, we may see an increase in the value of practices,” said Mark O. Dietrich, a CPA in Framingham, Mass., who deals mostly with valuations of physician practices.

“Practice valuations have been lower because many patients have kept away and cash flow has been reduced,” Mr. Dietrich said. “But once patients feel safe, that barrier would be removed, and cash flow, which sales prices are generally based on, could rise. However, this may take a while. One major hurdle would be getting people to take the vaccine.”
 

Many doctors have been contemplating closing

The nation is currently undergoing a significant spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations, which could prompt another COVID-19–related downturn in practice volume, as occurred earlier in the year. That downturn forced many private practitioners to contemplate selling their practices.

In a survey released this summer by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent physicians reported that they were worried about their practices surviving. Although many physicians have now reopened their offices, patient volume is reduced, and physicians are earning far less than before.

“In many cases, physicians who had been considering retirement in the next few years have moved their planning up and want to sell as soon as possible,” said John D. Fanburg, an attorney at Brach Eichler, a law firm in Roseland, N.J., who specializes in medical practice sales and mergers.

“For physicians over age 65, it’s not just worries about finances; it’s also worries about the health risks of staying open,” Mr. Fanburg added.

Mid-career physicians are also selling their practices. Many of them become employees of the hospital, large practice, or private-equity firm that bought the practice – receiving a level of compensation set by the sales agreement.
 

Will your practice be hard to sell?

With so many physicians ready to sell, are there enough potential buyers to acquire them all? Probably not, said Mr. Dietrich.

“Many hospitals may not need new practices right now,” he said. “In the depths of the pandemic, they furloughed many of their existing doctors and may not have brought all of them back yet.”

In fact, because of the pandemic, some buyers have delayed sales that were already in progress, said Monica H. Kaden, director of business valuations at Sobel Valuations, based in Livingston, N.J.

“Buyers are not only worried about their own cash flow but also about the possibility of lower revenues of the selling practices due to COVID-19,” she said, citing a very large multispecialty group that has put its purchase of a another large multispecialty group on hold.
 

Practice values have (temporarily) fallen

Many potential buyers are still looking, though. One thing that drives them is the possibility of discounted sales because of COVID-19. “The sense I get is that a lot of hospitals see this as an opportunity to pick up practices on the cheap,” Mr. Dietrich said.

COVID-19 has been reducing practice values somewhat, said Reed Tinsley, a CPA in Houston who performs medical practice valuations and runs a practice brokerage firm. “Practice revenues and net income are lower under COVID-19, so prices are lower.”

Ms. Kadan advised physicians to hold off selling if they can afford to wait. “It’s always best to sell when the practice volume looks the best, because then the practice is worth more. But there are doctors who can’t wait because revenues are really falling and they are running out of money. They may have no choice but to sell.”

Even in the best of times, not all practices can be sold, said Sean Tinsley, a broker and licensed financial adviser at Tinsley Medical Practice Brokers in Austin, Tex., which he runs with his father, Reed Tinsley.

“We turn down about as many deals to sell practices as we accept,” he said. “Brokers have to be very selective because we don’t get paid until the practice gets sold. Generally, we won’t take practices in rural areas or practices that still only have a fraction of their pre–COVID-19 volume.”
 

How long will it take to sell your practice?

Some practices find a buyer within weeks, but in other cases, it can take as long as a year, he said. Once the buyer is located, preparing the paperwork for the sale can take 45-60 days.

Doctors can sell their practices on their own, but a broker can help them find potential buyers and select the right price. Business brokers generally receive a greater percentage of the sales price than residential brokers. They have greater command of business and finance, and the sale is more complex than a residential sale.

The broker may also help with selling the building where the practice is located, which is usually a separate sale, said Bruce E. Wood, an attorney at CCB Law in Syracuse, N.Y., who deals with practice sales. “A hospital buying your practice may not want to buy the building, so it has to be sold separately. You can always sell the space to a different buyer.”
 

What’s the right price for your practice?

For small practices, brokers often set a price by establishing a multiple, such as two times net earnings, Sean Tinsley said. In many cases, practices haven’t retained net earnings, so the broker uses gross annual revenue and sets the price at 50%-55% of that figure.

An alternative that is widely used in the business world and for many large practices is to base the price on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). To determine a price, the EBITDA is then multiplied by a particular multiple, which depends on the perceived value of the practice.

Higher multiples go to practices that have a qualified management team, have documented financial policies and procedures, or have had significant past growth. Generally, the multiple of EBITDA at smaller practices is 1 or 2; larger practices have a multiple of 5-7 times EBITDA, Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has had the effect of reducing the multiple somewhat. “As market forces shift from a seller’s market to a buyer’s market, multiples will likely remain below pre–COVID-19 levels for the remainder of 2020 and the first half of 2021,” one report stated.

Certified valuators like Reed Tinsley have more complex ways to establish the value of a practice, but as a broker, Sean Tinsley tends to use the multiples approach. He asserted that the prices derived from this method are on the mark. “Almost all the time we sell at the asking price.”
 

Using valuations to set the price

A more complex and expensive way to set a price for a practice is to order a valuation of the practice. The valuator issues a report that runs dozens of pages and costs thousands of dollars.

Mr. Fanburg said that very few physicians selling practices order valuation reports, owing to the cost and complexity. As a result, “they don’t have a clear idea what their practices are worth.”

A comprehensive report is called a conclusion of value. The amount it finds – expressed as a range – is called “fair market value.” The report can be used in the courts for legal disputes as well as for deriving a sales price.

Practices that don’t want to pay for a conclusion of value can ask a valuator to assemble a less extensive report, called an opinion of calculated value. Also known as a calculation engagement or engagement letter, it still costs several thousand dollars.

This report has limited validity and can’t be used in the courts, according to Jarrod Barraza, a certified valuator in the Nashville, Tenn., office of Horne, a health care business valuator. “When I issue an engagement letter, I am not talking as an appraiser but as a valuation consultant, and I don’t call the result fair market value; it’s only estimating,” he said.

For all of the precision of formal reports, however, valuations of a practice can vary widely, according to Reed Tinsley. “Two valuations using the same methodology can differ by $300,000.”

Also, the valuation can be well above a reasonable asking price, said Sean Tinsley. “The market dictates the price. A traditional valuation almost invariably quotes a higher return than the market is willing to pay.”
 

Buyers’ valuations

Physicians who decide not to get a valuation still have to deal with valuations ordered by buyers. Hospitals and large practices often order valuations of the practices they want to buy, and private-equity firms use methods much like a valuation for the practices they are interested in.

Buyers rarely share the valuation report with the seller, so the seller has to accept the buyer’s price without being able to review the thought process behind it, Mr. Fanburg said. “Relying on the buyer to tell you what you’re worth means you may sell your practice well below its true value.”

When the buyer orders a valuation, the valuator interviews managers of the practice and asks for a great deal of information, says G. Don Barbo, managing director at VMG Health, a health care valuation firm based in Dallas.

Mr. Barbo said these documents include financial statements for the practice, usually going back 3-5 years; productivity reports for doctors and other providers; accounts receivables; reports of fixed assets; a roster of employees; employment agreements and management services agreements; reports on payer mix; facility leases and equipment lease agreements; budgets and projections; and tax returns.

Mr. Dietrich said valuators hone in on the practice’s current procedural terminology codes. “If the practice is coding too high, this would artificially increase the profit and purported value of the practice. For example, coding at 99214 rather than 99213 for an established patient means that the practice is being paid 45% more for each visit.” The valuator then reduces the value of the practice on the basis of the extent of the improper up-coding.

Mr. Barbo said some sellers don’t want all the scrutiny of the buyer’s valuation and just sell the practice’s tangible assets – furnishings, fixtures, and equipment – which do not require a great deal of documentation but yield a much lower price.
 

A primer on valuations

As a valuator, “my job is to project into the future,” Mr. Barraza said. “I am trying to see how the practice will fare going forward.”

Mr. Dietrich agreed, with one caveat: “As Yogi Berra said: ‘It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.’ ”

The formal valuation assesses the practice in three ways: measuring income, assets, and what other practices sell for, called the market approach.

With the income approach, the most used measurement for practices, one tries to determine future income, which is what buyers are most interested in, Mr. Dietrich said. The income equals revenue (total collections) minus operating expenses and overhead.

“You are then left with all the money the physician is paid,” he said. “The issue is, how much is attributed to the physician’s own labor and how much to his or her ownership of the practice? This second category helps determine the value of the practice.”

The market approach is often used as a way to double-check the accuracy of the income approach. The appraiser looks for the prices of similar practices that have already been sold and then adjusts the price on the basis of differences with the practice up for sale.

The asset approach may be used when the practice has no positive cash flow. It establishes a price for tangible assets, which are often much lower in value than the values that the other approaches come up with. The asset approach can be a lower-priced alternative for practices that can’t be measured under the income or market approach.

“Equipment appraisers can do an inventory of your equipment,” Mr. Wood said. “Generally, equipment that is more than 3 years old, such as computers, is not that valuable, but an ultrasound machine probably has some resale value.”
 

Will the buyer pay for goodwill?

Many practice owners hope they can get money for the “goodwill” of their practice when they sell. Goodwill basically represents the reputation of the practice, which is difficult to pinpoint, and Mr. Wood said buyers often don’t want to pay for it.

“The goodwill is a wild card,” Mr. Wood said. “It can range from zero to crazy numbers. There is a Goodwill Registry – a list of the goodwill in other practice sales – that you can consult.”

One simple way to calculate the goodwill, he said, is to take the value of the practice based on examining income and remove the value of tangible assets. What is left is considered the goodwill.

Another form of intangible asset that is sometimes lumped together with goodwill is the value of the practice’s trained staff. “Some buyers agree to pay for the staff in place, because they plan to use that staff,” Ms. Kadan said. In one large deal she was involved with, the buyer agreed to pay something for the selling practice’s staff of 180 people.

Another item that buyers also do not typically pay for is the practice’s accounts receivable. They may also not pay for any liabilities the practice holds, such as the facility lease, equipment lease, and maintenance contracts, Mr. Barbo said. “The buyer then often stipulates that all liabilities are left to the practice, or stipulates any specific liabilities that it may assume.”
 

Selling to other doctors

Doctors can sell practices or shares in practices to other doctors. A retiring physician, for example, can sell his or her share to the other partners. A valuator may be brought in to establish the value of the doctor’s equity interest in the practice.

“Generally, practice buyouts aren’t lucrative for selling physician,” Mr. Wood said. “There are exceptions, of course, such as specialty practices in some cases.”

A practice can also be sold to a new doctor or to a previously employed physician who wants to be an owner. These physicians usually need to get a bank loan to buy the practice.

The bank assesses the finances of the selling practice to determine whether the buying physician will earn enough money to pay back the loan. “Banks don’t want lend more than the gross annual revenue of the practice, and some banks will only lend at 65% of gross annual revenue,” Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has seriously affected banks’ lending decisions. Banks stopped lending to practice buyers at the beginning of the pandemic, and when they started lending again, they were more cautious, Sean Tinsley said. “Generally, banks want to see the practice at 85%-90% of pre–COVID-19 numbers before they make a loan.”

He added that, if a buyer can’t get a bank loan, the selling doctor may decide to finance the sale. The buyer agrees to a payment schedule to pay off the full price over several years.
 

Selling to or merging with other practices

The usual buyer is another practice, Reed Tinsley said. “You can sell to a group, but prices are low because, with COVID-19, buyers don’t want to incur a lot of money up front. Or you can merge with the practice, which means the selling doctor usually doesn’t get any money, but he does get a share in the larger practice. In that case, the partnership is the object of value, and it can be cashed out when the physician leaves the practice.”

Mergers can get very complicated. Mr. Fanburg said he has been working with seven groups that are merging into one. “The merger was scheduled to go live last January, but it was slowed down over negotiations about new managed care contracts and putting together a management structure, plus the groups were a little wary of each other. Now the deal is scheduled to go live next January.”

One advantage to selling to a larger entity, such as a big group practice or a hospital, is that the selling physician benefits from the higher reimbursement rates that large providers usually command. “If the buyer has more favorable reimbursement rates with insurers, it could pay the selling doctor much more than he is making now,” Mr. Barraza said.
 

Hospitals as buyers

Because of COVID-19, currently many hospitals don’t have money to buy more practices. However, this is most likely a temporary situation.

Hospitals typically offer less money than other buyers, according to Sean Tinsley. “We have never sold to a hospital, because hospitals generally don’t pay for goodwill. They pay for the practice assets and offer a dollar amount for each chart.”

Hospitals have to be careful not to pay physicians more than the usual amount for their practices, because the extra amount could be seen as a kickback for referrals, which would violate the federal Stark law and Anti-Kickback Statute. Not-for-profit hospitals also have to comply with regulations at the Internal Revenue Service.

Hospitals usually require that the selling physician continue to work in the practice after it is sold. The selling physician’s presence helps ensure that the practice’s output will not decline after sale. Although the sales price may be low, the hospital may make up for it by paying a higher compensation, Sean Tinsley said.
 

Selling to private-equity firms

Private-equity purchases are financed by investors who essentially want to “flip” practices – that is, they want to make them more profitable and then sell them to someone else. The private-equity firm starts by buying a “platform” practice, which forms the core of the venture. It then buys smaller practices that will be managed by the platform practice.

The number of private-equity deals increased continually through 2019, then plummeted in March because of COVID-19, but by the summer, activity began to rise again.

Physicians are very intrigued about selling to private-equity firms because they are known to pay the most for practices. But private-equity buyers focus on a fairly narrow group of specialties.

Generally, Sean Tinsley said, private-equity firms only look for pain, dermatology, and ophthalmology practices, but they have been starting to branch out to specialties such as gastroenterology. In 2018, there were only two private-equity deals for gastroenterology practices, but in 2019, there were 16, according to one assessment.

Private-equity firms buy very few of the practices they initially review, according to Mr. Fanburg. “Private equity negotiates with dozens or even hundreds of physician practices at a time, with only 1%-5% of those practices actually being acquired.”

The private-equity firm’s upfront payment to selling physicians is quite high, but then the physicians become employees of the new group and earn much less in compensation than they earned on this own.

“In order for the venture to get any value out of the acquisition, the doctors have to make less going forward than they did historically,” Mr. Dietrich said. That freed-up money boosts the value of the venture.

When the platform practice is sold – usually after 5 years or so – “chances are the management team will be replaced,” Mr. Fanburg said. “There could be new policies and objectives, which could mean a bumpy ride for physicians.”
 

Do you really want to sell?

“When a group of physicians comes to me asking for help selling their practice, my first question is, Why are you doing this?” Mr. Fanburg said. “You need a better reason for selling than just the money.

“Once you make the leap, there is a certain amount of autonomy you lose,” he continued. “The sale gives you an economic boost, but it may not be enough for the long haul. If you stay on with the buyer, your compensation is often lower. That makes sense if you’re retiring, but not if you’re a younger physician with many years of practice in the years ahead.

“When physicians say they see no other way out except to sell,” Mr. Fanburg said, “I tell them that their buyer will see a path to future growth for your practice. If you think reimbursements are getting worse, why are the buyers pressing ahead?”

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the bottom lines of many private practices, prompting physician-owners to seriously contemplate selling.

Physician-owners have had to sell at lower prices, reflecting lower cash flow under COVID-19. But sales prices may rebound following news on Nov. 9 that a COVID-19 vaccine candidate produced by Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, may be ready for initial distribution before the end of the year.

“There are a lot of ifs still, but if things go according to expectations, we may see an increase in the value of practices,” said Mark O. Dietrich, a CPA in Framingham, Mass., who deals mostly with valuations of physician practices.

“Practice valuations have been lower because many patients have kept away and cash flow has been reduced,” Mr. Dietrich said. “But once patients feel safe, that barrier would be removed, and cash flow, which sales prices are generally based on, could rise. However, this may take a while. One major hurdle would be getting people to take the vaccine.”
 

Many doctors have been contemplating closing

The nation is currently undergoing a significant spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations, which could prompt another COVID-19–related downturn in practice volume, as occurred earlier in the year. That downturn forced many private practitioners to contemplate selling their practices.

In a survey released this summer by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent physicians reported that they were worried about their practices surviving. Although many physicians have now reopened their offices, patient volume is reduced, and physicians are earning far less than before.

“In many cases, physicians who had been considering retirement in the next few years have moved their planning up and want to sell as soon as possible,” said John D. Fanburg, an attorney at Brach Eichler, a law firm in Roseland, N.J., who specializes in medical practice sales and mergers.

“For physicians over age 65, it’s not just worries about finances; it’s also worries about the health risks of staying open,” Mr. Fanburg added.

Mid-career physicians are also selling their practices. Many of them become employees of the hospital, large practice, or private-equity firm that bought the practice – receiving a level of compensation set by the sales agreement.
 

Will your practice be hard to sell?

With so many physicians ready to sell, are there enough potential buyers to acquire them all? Probably not, said Mr. Dietrich.

“Many hospitals may not need new practices right now,” he said. “In the depths of the pandemic, they furloughed many of their existing doctors and may not have brought all of them back yet.”

In fact, because of the pandemic, some buyers have delayed sales that were already in progress, said Monica H. Kaden, director of business valuations at Sobel Valuations, based in Livingston, N.J.

“Buyers are not only worried about their own cash flow but also about the possibility of lower revenues of the selling practices due to COVID-19,” she said, citing a very large multispecialty group that has put its purchase of a another large multispecialty group on hold.
 

Practice values have (temporarily) fallen

Many potential buyers are still looking, though. One thing that drives them is the possibility of discounted sales because of COVID-19. “The sense I get is that a lot of hospitals see this as an opportunity to pick up practices on the cheap,” Mr. Dietrich said.

COVID-19 has been reducing practice values somewhat, said Reed Tinsley, a CPA in Houston who performs medical practice valuations and runs a practice brokerage firm. “Practice revenues and net income are lower under COVID-19, so prices are lower.”

Ms. Kadan advised physicians to hold off selling if they can afford to wait. “It’s always best to sell when the practice volume looks the best, because then the practice is worth more. But there are doctors who can’t wait because revenues are really falling and they are running out of money. They may have no choice but to sell.”

Even in the best of times, not all practices can be sold, said Sean Tinsley, a broker and licensed financial adviser at Tinsley Medical Practice Brokers in Austin, Tex., which he runs with his father, Reed Tinsley.

“We turn down about as many deals to sell practices as we accept,” he said. “Brokers have to be very selective because we don’t get paid until the practice gets sold. Generally, we won’t take practices in rural areas or practices that still only have a fraction of their pre–COVID-19 volume.”
 

How long will it take to sell your practice?

Some practices find a buyer within weeks, but in other cases, it can take as long as a year, he said. Once the buyer is located, preparing the paperwork for the sale can take 45-60 days.

Doctors can sell their practices on their own, but a broker can help them find potential buyers and select the right price. Business brokers generally receive a greater percentage of the sales price than residential brokers. They have greater command of business and finance, and the sale is more complex than a residential sale.

The broker may also help with selling the building where the practice is located, which is usually a separate sale, said Bruce E. Wood, an attorney at CCB Law in Syracuse, N.Y., who deals with practice sales. “A hospital buying your practice may not want to buy the building, so it has to be sold separately. You can always sell the space to a different buyer.”
 

What’s the right price for your practice?

For small practices, brokers often set a price by establishing a multiple, such as two times net earnings, Sean Tinsley said. In many cases, practices haven’t retained net earnings, so the broker uses gross annual revenue and sets the price at 50%-55% of that figure.

An alternative that is widely used in the business world and for many large practices is to base the price on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). To determine a price, the EBITDA is then multiplied by a particular multiple, which depends on the perceived value of the practice.

Higher multiples go to practices that have a qualified management team, have documented financial policies and procedures, or have had significant past growth. Generally, the multiple of EBITDA at smaller practices is 1 or 2; larger practices have a multiple of 5-7 times EBITDA, Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has had the effect of reducing the multiple somewhat. “As market forces shift from a seller’s market to a buyer’s market, multiples will likely remain below pre–COVID-19 levels for the remainder of 2020 and the first half of 2021,” one report stated.

Certified valuators like Reed Tinsley have more complex ways to establish the value of a practice, but as a broker, Sean Tinsley tends to use the multiples approach. He asserted that the prices derived from this method are on the mark. “Almost all the time we sell at the asking price.”
 

Using valuations to set the price

A more complex and expensive way to set a price for a practice is to order a valuation of the practice. The valuator issues a report that runs dozens of pages and costs thousands of dollars.

Mr. Fanburg said that very few physicians selling practices order valuation reports, owing to the cost and complexity. As a result, “they don’t have a clear idea what their practices are worth.”

A comprehensive report is called a conclusion of value. The amount it finds – expressed as a range – is called “fair market value.” The report can be used in the courts for legal disputes as well as for deriving a sales price.

Practices that don’t want to pay for a conclusion of value can ask a valuator to assemble a less extensive report, called an opinion of calculated value. Also known as a calculation engagement or engagement letter, it still costs several thousand dollars.

This report has limited validity and can’t be used in the courts, according to Jarrod Barraza, a certified valuator in the Nashville, Tenn., office of Horne, a health care business valuator. “When I issue an engagement letter, I am not talking as an appraiser but as a valuation consultant, and I don’t call the result fair market value; it’s only estimating,” he said.

For all of the precision of formal reports, however, valuations of a practice can vary widely, according to Reed Tinsley. “Two valuations using the same methodology can differ by $300,000.”

Also, the valuation can be well above a reasonable asking price, said Sean Tinsley. “The market dictates the price. A traditional valuation almost invariably quotes a higher return than the market is willing to pay.”
 

Buyers’ valuations

Physicians who decide not to get a valuation still have to deal with valuations ordered by buyers. Hospitals and large practices often order valuations of the practices they want to buy, and private-equity firms use methods much like a valuation for the practices they are interested in.

Buyers rarely share the valuation report with the seller, so the seller has to accept the buyer’s price without being able to review the thought process behind it, Mr. Fanburg said. “Relying on the buyer to tell you what you’re worth means you may sell your practice well below its true value.”

When the buyer orders a valuation, the valuator interviews managers of the practice and asks for a great deal of information, says G. Don Barbo, managing director at VMG Health, a health care valuation firm based in Dallas.

Mr. Barbo said these documents include financial statements for the practice, usually going back 3-5 years; productivity reports for doctors and other providers; accounts receivables; reports of fixed assets; a roster of employees; employment agreements and management services agreements; reports on payer mix; facility leases and equipment lease agreements; budgets and projections; and tax returns.

Mr. Dietrich said valuators hone in on the practice’s current procedural terminology codes. “If the practice is coding too high, this would artificially increase the profit and purported value of the practice. For example, coding at 99214 rather than 99213 for an established patient means that the practice is being paid 45% more for each visit.” The valuator then reduces the value of the practice on the basis of the extent of the improper up-coding.

Mr. Barbo said some sellers don’t want all the scrutiny of the buyer’s valuation and just sell the practice’s tangible assets – furnishings, fixtures, and equipment – which do not require a great deal of documentation but yield a much lower price.
 

A primer on valuations

As a valuator, “my job is to project into the future,” Mr. Barraza said. “I am trying to see how the practice will fare going forward.”

Mr. Dietrich agreed, with one caveat: “As Yogi Berra said: ‘It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.’ ”

The formal valuation assesses the practice in three ways: measuring income, assets, and what other practices sell for, called the market approach.

With the income approach, the most used measurement for practices, one tries to determine future income, which is what buyers are most interested in, Mr. Dietrich said. The income equals revenue (total collections) minus operating expenses and overhead.

“You are then left with all the money the physician is paid,” he said. “The issue is, how much is attributed to the physician’s own labor and how much to his or her ownership of the practice? This second category helps determine the value of the practice.”

The market approach is often used as a way to double-check the accuracy of the income approach. The appraiser looks for the prices of similar practices that have already been sold and then adjusts the price on the basis of differences with the practice up for sale.

The asset approach may be used when the practice has no positive cash flow. It establishes a price for tangible assets, which are often much lower in value than the values that the other approaches come up with. The asset approach can be a lower-priced alternative for practices that can’t be measured under the income or market approach.

“Equipment appraisers can do an inventory of your equipment,” Mr. Wood said. “Generally, equipment that is more than 3 years old, such as computers, is not that valuable, but an ultrasound machine probably has some resale value.”
 

Will the buyer pay for goodwill?

Many practice owners hope they can get money for the “goodwill” of their practice when they sell. Goodwill basically represents the reputation of the practice, which is difficult to pinpoint, and Mr. Wood said buyers often don’t want to pay for it.

“The goodwill is a wild card,” Mr. Wood said. “It can range from zero to crazy numbers. There is a Goodwill Registry – a list of the goodwill in other practice sales – that you can consult.”

One simple way to calculate the goodwill, he said, is to take the value of the practice based on examining income and remove the value of tangible assets. What is left is considered the goodwill.

Another form of intangible asset that is sometimes lumped together with goodwill is the value of the practice’s trained staff. “Some buyers agree to pay for the staff in place, because they plan to use that staff,” Ms. Kadan said. In one large deal she was involved with, the buyer agreed to pay something for the selling practice’s staff of 180 people.

Another item that buyers also do not typically pay for is the practice’s accounts receivable. They may also not pay for any liabilities the practice holds, such as the facility lease, equipment lease, and maintenance contracts, Mr. Barbo said. “The buyer then often stipulates that all liabilities are left to the practice, or stipulates any specific liabilities that it may assume.”
 

Selling to other doctors

Doctors can sell practices or shares in practices to other doctors. A retiring physician, for example, can sell his or her share to the other partners. A valuator may be brought in to establish the value of the doctor’s equity interest in the practice.

“Generally, practice buyouts aren’t lucrative for selling physician,” Mr. Wood said. “There are exceptions, of course, such as specialty practices in some cases.”

A practice can also be sold to a new doctor or to a previously employed physician who wants to be an owner. These physicians usually need to get a bank loan to buy the practice.

The bank assesses the finances of the selling practice to determine whether the buying physician will earn enough money to pay back the loan. “Banks don’t want lend more than the gross annual revenue of the practice, and some banks will only lend at 65% of gross annual revenue,” Sean Tinsley said.

COVID-19 has seriously affected banks’ lending decisions. Banks stopped lending to practice buyers at the beginning of the pandemic, and when they started lending again, they were more cautious, Sean Tinsley said. “Generally, banks want to see the practice at 85%-90% of pre–COVID-19 numbers before they make a loan.”

He added that, if a buyer can’t get a bank loan, the selling doctor may decide to finance the sale. The buyer agrees to a payment schedule to pay off the full price over several years.
 

Selling to or merging with other practices

The usual buyer is another practice, Reed Tinsley said. “You can sell to a group, but prices are low because, with COVID-19, buyers don’t want to incur a lot of money up front. Or you can merge with the practice, which means the selling doctor usually doesn’t get any money, but he does get a share in the larger practice. In that case, the partnership is the object of value, and it can be cashed out when the physician leaves the practice.”

Mergers can get very complicated. Mr. Fanburg said he has been working with seven groups that are merging into one. “The merger was scheduled to go live last January, but it was slowed down over negotiations about new managed care contracts and putting together a management structure, plus the groups were a little wary of each other. Now the deal is scheduled to go live next January.”

One advantage to selling to a larger entity, such as a big group practice or a hospital, is that the selling physician benefits from the higher reimbursement rates that large providers usually command. “If the buyer has more favorable reimbursement rates with insurers, it could pay the selling doctor much more than he is making now,” Mr. Barraza said.
 

Hospitals as buyers

Because of COVID-19, currently many hospitals don’t have money to buy more practices. However, this is most likely a temporary situation.

Hospitals typically offer less money than other buyers, according to Sean Tinsley. “We have never sold to a hospital, because hospitals generally don’t pay for goodwill. They pay for the practice assets and offer a dollar amount for each chart.”

Hospitals have to be careful not to pay physicians more than the usual amount for their practices, because the extra amount could be seen as a kickback for referrals, which would violate the federal Stark law and Anti-Kickback Statute. Not-for-profit hospitals also have to comply with regulations at the Internal Revenue Service.

Hospitals usually require that the selling physician continue to work in the practice after it is sold. The selling physician’s presence helps ensure that the practice’s output will not decline after sale. Although the sales price may be low, the hospital may make up for it by paying a higher compensation, Sean Tinsley said.
 

Selling to private-equity firms

Private-equity purchases are financed by investors who essentially want to “flip” practices – that is, they want to make them more profitable and then sell them to someone else. The private-equity firm starts by buying a “platform” practice, which forms the core of the venture. It then buys smaller practices that will be managed by the platform practice.

The number of private-equity deals increased continually through 2019, then plummeted in March because of COVID-19, but by the summer, activity began to rise again.

Physicians are very intrigued about selling to private-equity firms because they are known to pay the most for practices. But private-equity buyers focus on a fairly narrow group of specialties.

Generally, Sean Tinsley said, private-equity firms only look for pain, dermatology, and ophthalmology practices, but they have been starting to branch out to specialties such as gastroenterology. In 2018, there were only two private-equity deals for gastroenterology practices, but in 2019, there were 16, according to one assessment.

Private-equity firms buy very few of the practices they initially review, according to Mr. Fanburg. “Private equity negotiates with dozens or even hundreds of physician practices at a time, with only 1%-5% of those practices actually being acquired.”

The private-equity firm’s upfront payment to selling physicians is quite high, but then the physicians become employees of the new group and earn much less in compensation than they earned on this own.

“In order for the venture to get any value out of the acquisition, the doctors have to make less going forward than they did historically,” Mr. Dietrich said. That freed-up money boosts the value of the venture.

When the platform practice is sold – usually after 5 years or so – “chances are the management team will be replaced,” Mr. Fanburg said. “There could be new policies and objectives, which could mean a bumpy ride for physicians.”
 

Do you really want to sell?

“When a group of physicians comes to me asking for help selling their practice, my first question is, Why are you doing this?” Mr. Fanburg said. “You need a better reason for selling than just the money.

“Once you make the leap, there is a certain amount of autonomy you lose,” he continued. “The sale gives you an economic boost, but it may not be enough for the long haul. If you stay on with the buyer, your compensation is often lower. That makes sense if you’re retiring, but not if you’re a younger physician with many years of practice in the years ahead.

“When physicians say they see no other way out except to sell,” Mr. Fanburg said, “I tell them that their buyer will see a path to future growth for your practice. If you think reimbursements are getting worse, why are the buyers pressing ahead?”

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.

A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
 

 End-of-life decisions

Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.

Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).

A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”

A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”

Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.

In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.

On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”

Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
 

Assisted death and incurable suffering

Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”

However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.

“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”

Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.

“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.

Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
 

Would you undertreat pain?

Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.

Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”

In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”

“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
 

Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?

Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”

Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
 

Speaking out against the workplace

This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.

Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”

A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
 

Random drug testing for physicians?

Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.

The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.

A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”

An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
 

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

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Traditional delivery of palliative care to outpatients with cancer is associated with many challenges.

Telehealth can eliminate some of these challenges but comes with issues of its own, according to results of the REACH PC trial.

Jennifer S. Temel, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, discussed the use of telemedicine in palliative care, including results from REACH PC, during an educational session at the ASCO Virtual Quality Care Symposium 2020.

Dr. Temel noted that, for cancer patients, an in-person visit with a palliative care specialist can cost time, induce fatigue, and increase financial burden from transportation and parking expenses.

For caregivers and family, an in-person visit may necessitate absence from family and/or work, require complex scheduling to coordinate with other office visits, and result in additional transportation and/or parking expenses.

For health care systems, to have a dedicated palliative care clinic requires precious space and financial expenditures for office personnel and other resources.

These issues make it attractive to consider whether telehealth could be used for palliative care services.
 

Scarcity of palliative care specialists

In the United States, there is roughly 1 palliative care physician for every 20,000 older adults with a life-limiting illness, according to research published in Annual Review of Public Health in 2014.

In its 2019 state-by-state report card, the Center to Advance Palliative Care noted that only 72% of U.S. hospitals with 50 or more beds have a palliative care team.

For patients with serious illnesses and those who are socioeconomically or geographically disadvantaged, palliative care is often inaccessible.

Inefficiencies in the current system are an additional impediment. Palliative care specialists frequently see patients during a portion of the patient’s routine visit to subspecialty or primary care clinics. This limits the palliative care specialist’s ability to perform comprehensive assessments and provide patient-centered care efficiently.
 

Special considerations regarding telehealth for palliative care

As a specialty, palliative care involves interactions that could make the use of telehealth problematic. For example, conveyance of interest, warmth, and touch are challenging or impossible in a video format.

Palliative care specialists engage with patients regarding relatively serious topics such as prognosis and end-of-life preferences. There is uncertainty about how those discussions would be received by patients and their caregivers via video.

Furthermore, there are logistical impediments such as prescribing opioids with video or across state lines.

Despite these concerns, the ENABLE study showed that supplementing usual oncology care with weekly (transitioning to monthly) telephone-based educational palliative care produced higher quality of life and mood than did usual oncology care alone. These results were published in JAMA in 2009.
 

REACH PC study demonstrates feasibility of telehealth model

Dr. Temel described the ongoing REACH PC trial in which palliative care is delivered via video visits and compared with in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

The primary aim of REACH PC is to determine whether telehealth palliative care is equivalent to traditional palliative care in improving quality of life as a supplement to routine oncology care.

Currently, REACH PC has enrolled 581 patients at its 20 sites, spanning a geographically diverse area. Just over half of patients approached about REACH PC agreed to enroll in it. Ultimately, 1,250 enrollees are sought.

Among patients who declined to participate, 7.6% indicated “discomfort with technology” as the reason. Most refusals were due to lack of interest in research (35.1%) and/or palliative care (22.9%).

Older adults were prominent among enrollees. More than 60% were older than 60 years of age, and more than one-third were older than 70 years.

Among patients who began the trial, there were slightly more withdrawals in the telehealth participants, in comparison with in-person participants (13.6% versus 9.1%).

When palliative care clinicians were queried about video visits, 64.3% said there were no challenges. This is comparable to the 65.5% of clinicians who had no challenges with in-person visits.

When problems occurred with video visits, they were most frequently technical (19.1%). Only 1.4% of clinicians reported difficulty addressing topics that felt uncomfortable over video, and 1.5% reported difficulty establishing rapport.

The success rates of video and in-person visits were similar. About 80% of visits accomplished planned goals.
 

‘Webside’ manner

Strategies such as reflective listening and summarizing what patients say (to verify an accurate understanding of the patient’s perspective) are key to successful palliative care visits, regardless of the setting.

For telehealth visits, Dr. Temel described techniques she defined as “webside manner,” to compensate for the inability of the clinician to touch a patient. These techniques include leaning in toward the camera, nodding, and pausing to be certain the patient has finished speaking before the clinician speaks again.
 

Is telehealth the future of palliative care?

I include myself among those oncologists who have voiced concern about moving from face-to-face to remote visits for complicated consultations such as those required for palliative care. Nonetheless, from the preliminary results of the REACH PC trial, it appears that telehealth could be a valuable tool.

To minimize differences between in-person and remote delivery of palliative care, practical strategies for ensuring rapport and facilitating a trusting relationship should be defined further and disseminated.

In addition, we need to be vigilant for widening inequities of care from rapid movement to the use of technology (i.e., an equity gap). In their telehealth experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at Houston Methodist Cancer Center found that patients declining virtual visits tended to be older, lower-income, and less likely to have commercial insurance. These results were recently published in JCO Oncology Practice.

For the foregoing reasons, hybrid systems for palliative care services will probably always be needed.

Going forward, we should heed the advice of Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock. Mr. Toffler said, “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

The traditional model for delivering palliative care will almost certainly need to be reimagined and relearned.

Dr. Temel disclosed institutional research funding from Pfizer.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Over 818,000 plans were selected for the 2021 coverage year during the first week, Nov.1-7, of this year’s open enrollment on the federal health insurance exchange, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The bulk of those plans, nearly 79%, were renewals by consumers who had coverage through the federal exchange this year. The balance covers new plans selected by individuals who were not covered through HealthCare.gov this year, the CMS noted in a written statement.

The total enrollment for week 1 marks a considerable increase over last year’s first week of open enrollment, which saw approximately 177,000 plans selected, but Nov. 1 fell on a Friday in 2019, so that total represents only 2 days since weeks are tracked as running from Sunday to Saturday, the CMS explained.

For the 2021 benefit year, the HealthCare.gov platform covers 36 states, down from 38 for the 2020 benefit year, because New Jersey and Pennsylvania have “transitioned to their own state-based exchange platforms,” the CMS noted, adding that the two accounted for 7% of all plans selected last year.

“The final number of plan selections associated with enrollment activity during a reporting period may change due to plan modifications or cancellations,” CMS said, and its weekly snapshot “does not report the number of consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment.”

This year’s open-enrollment period on HealthCare.gov is scheduled to conclude Dec. 15.

[email protected]

Over 818,000 plans were selected for the 2021 coverage year during the first week, Nov.1-7, of this year’s open enrollment on the federal health insurance exchange, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The bulk of those plans, nearly 79%, were renewals by consumers who had coverage through the federal exchange this year. The balance covers new plans selected by individuals who were not covered through HealthCare.gov this year, the CMS noted in a written statement.

The total enrollment for week 1 marks a considerable increase over last year’s first week of open enrollment, which saw approximately 177,000 plans selected, but Nov. 1 fell on a Friday in 2019, so that total represents only 2 days since weeks are tracked as running from Sunday to Saturday, the CMS explained.

For the 2021 benefit year, the HealthCare.gov platform covers 36 states, down from 38 for the 2020 benefit year, because New Jersey and Pennsylvania have “transitioned to their own state-based exchange platforms,” the CMS noted, adding that the two accounted for 7% of all plans selected last year.

“The final number of plan selections associated with enrollment activity during a reporting period may change due to plan modifications or cancellations,” CMS said, and its weekly snapshot “does not report the number of consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment.”

This year’s open-enrollment period on HealthCare.gov is scheduled to conclude Dec. 15.

[email protected]

Over 818,000 plans were selected for the 2021 coverage year during the first week, Nov.1-7, of this year’s open enrollment on the federal health insurance exchange, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The bulk of those plans, nearly 79%, were renewals by consumers who had coverage through the federal exchange this year. The balance covers new plans selected by individuals who were not covered through HealthCare.gov this year, the CMS noted in a written statement.

The total enrollment for week 1 marks a considerable increase over last year’s first week of open enrollment, which saw approximately 177,000 plans selected, but Nov. 1 fell on a Friday in 2019, so that total represents only 2 days since weeks are tracked as running from Sunday to Saturday, the CMS explained.

For the 2021 benefit year, the HealthCare.gov platform covers 36 states, down from 38 for the 2020 benefit year, because New Jersey and Pennsylvania have “transitioned to their own state-based exchange platforms,” the CMS noted, adding that the two accounted for 7% of all plans selected last year.

“The final number of plan selections associated with enrollment activity during a reporting period may change due to plan modifications or cancellations,” CMS said, and its weekly snapshot “does not report the number of consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment.”

This year’s open-enrollment period on HealthCare.gov is scheduled to conclude Dec. 15.

[email protected]

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all primary care clinicians have been engaged in telemedicine. Telemedicine visits have certain ­advantages—especially convenience to patients. But there are dangers, as well. The ­following true story illustrates one of the important dangers.

The outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

“I had an interesting experience late last week that reminded me how important it is to be one’s own advocate in health care. I cut my foot going for an outdoor swim. It got infected so I had a telehealth visit with a physician assistant. She prescribed an antibiotic. The next day, Friday, the swelling and redness were rapidly moving up my foot. I called the office twice. I sent a picture of my foot. No call-back.

I texted my podiatrist the same photo with the question: Do I sit tight or go to the ED? A half hour later, he called me: Go to the hospital. I did. I got IV antibiotics and a tetanus shot. I was also told by the ED doc that my itchy palms were a reaction to the antibiotic I’d been prescribed, and that the physician assistant shouldn’t have prescribed a sulfa drug, given that my chart listed a past reaction to sulfa eye drops.”

The patient is a top-flight triathlete and the editor of JFP, Marya Ostrowski. She was gracious to share her story with us, and she did recover uneventfully, although the outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

Her story has 3 important teaching points:

1. We must ensure that our office phone system prioritizes calls from patients. If there is any hint that the problem is urgent, it must be handled immediately.^a
2. CAREFULLY check for allergies before prescribing medication. Perhaps the physician assistant did check the medication list and noted an allergy to eye drops but did not zero in on the fact that they were sulfa. Medication allergy lists can be misleading because they can be too specific. Had her medication allergy been listed as “sulfa medications,” rather than the specific eye drop, the physician assistant may have recognized the allergy correctly.
3. Finally, and most important in my estimation: Patients must act as their own health advocates. Patients are the final common barrier against medical ­errors and we must learn to listen to them carefully. We should encourage our patients to report problems and irregularities in care.

^a The physician assistant returned Marya’s calls at 4:30 that Friday afternoon—8 hours after her first outreach. Marya was already in an ED bed and the nursing staff was starting her IV.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all primary care clinicians have been engaged in telemedicine. Telemedicine visits have certain ­advantages—especially convenience to patients. But there are dangers, as well. The ­following true story illustrates one of the important dangers.

The outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

“I had an interesting experience late last week that reminded me how important it is to be one’s own advocate in health care. I cut my foot going for an outdoor swim. It got infected so I had a telehealth visit with a physician assistant. She prescribed an antibiotic. The next day, Friday, the swelling and redness were rapidly moving up my foot. I called the office twice. I sent a picture of my foot. No call-back.

I texted my podiatrist the same photo with the question: Do I sit tight or go to the ED? A half hour later, he called me: Go to the hospital. I did. I got IV antibiotics and a tetanus shot. I was also told by the ED doc that my itchy palms were a reaction to the antibiotic I’d been prescribed, and that the physician assistant shouldn’t have prescribed a sulfa drug, given that my chart listed a past reaction to sulfa eye drops.”

The patient is a top-flight triathlete and the editor of JFP, Marya Ostrowski. She was gracious to share her story with us, and she did recover uneventfully, although the outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

Her story has 3 important teaching points:

1. We must ensure that our office phone system prioritizes calls from patients. If there is any hint that the problem is urgent, it must be handled immediately.^a
2. CAREFULLY check for allergies before prescribing medication. Perhaps the physician assistant did check the medication list and noted an allergy to eye drops but did not zero in on the fact that they were sulfa. Medication allergy lists can be misleading because they can be too specific. Had her medication allergy been listed as “sulfa medications,” rather than the specific eye drop, the physician assistant may have recognized the allergy correctly.
3. Finally, and most important in my estimation: Patients must act as their own health advocates. Patients are the final common barrier against medical ­errors and we must learn to listen to them carefully. We should encourage our patients to report problems and irregularities in care.

^a The physician assistant returned Marya’s calls at 4:30 that Friday afternoon—8 hours after her first outreach. Marya was already in an ED bed and the nursing staff was starting her IV.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly all primary care clinicians have been engaged in telemedicine. Telemedicine visits have certain ­advantages—especially convenience to patients. But there are dangers, as well. The ­following true story illustrates one of the important dangers.

The outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

“I had an interesting experience late last week that reminded me how important it is to be one’s own advocate in health care. I cut my foot going for an outdoor swim. It got infected so I had a telehealth visit with a physician assistant. She prescribed an antibiotic. The next day, Friday, the swelling and redness were rapidly moving up my foot. I called the office twice. I sent a picture of my foot. No call-back.

I texted my podiatrist the same photo with the question: Do I sit tight or go to the ED? A half hour later, he called me: Go to the hospital. I did. I got IV antibiotics and a tetanus shot. I was also told by the ED doc that my itchy palms were a reaction to the antibiotic I’d been prescribed, and that the physician assistant shouldn’t have prescribed a sulfa drug, given that my chart listed a past reaction to sulfa eye drops.”

The patient is a top-flight triathlete and the editor of JFP, Marya Ostrowski. She was gracious to share her story with us, and she did recover uneventfully, although the outcome might have been much different if there had been further delay.

Her story has 3 important teaching points:

1. We must ensure that our office phone system prioritizes calls from patients. If there is any hint that the problem is urgent, it must be handled immediately.^a
2. CAREFULLY check for allergies before prescribing medication. Perhaps the physician assistant did check the medication list and noted an allergy to eye drops but did not zero in on the fact that they were sulfa. Medication allergy lists can be misleading because they can be too specific. Had her medication allergy been listed as “sulfa medications,” rather than the specific eye drop, the physician assistant may have recognized the allergy correctly.
3. Finally, and most important in my estimation: Patients must act as their own health advocates. Patients are the final common barrier against medical ­errors and we must learn to listen to them carefully. We should encourage our patients to report problems and irregularities in care.

^a The physician assistant returned Marya’s calls at 4:30 that Friday afternoon—8 hours after her first outreach. Marya was already in an ED bed and the nursing staff was starting her IV.