Practice Management

In the first 2 articles of this series, “Telemedicine: A primer for today’s ObGyn” and “Telemedicine: Common hurdles and proper coding for ObGyns,” which appeared in the May and June issues of OBG Management, we discussed caring for patients without face-to-face visits and that virtual visits are an opportunity to provide good care in a world such as that created by COVID-19. We also discussed which patients are the most appropriate candidates for telemedicine, as well as how to properly code virtual visits so that you are paid for your time and service. This third article addresses the legal concerns and caveats of using telemedicine and makes a prediction for the future of virtual health care.

Legal issues surrounding telemedicine

There are numerous legal, regulatory, and compliance issues that existed before the pandemic that likely will continue to be of concern postpandemic. Although the recent 1135 waiver (allowing Medicare to pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth)¹ and other regulations are now in place for almost every aspect of telemedicine, virtual medicine is not a free-for-all (even though it may seem like it). Practicing ethical telemedicine entails abiding by numerous federal and state-specific laws and requirements. It is important to be aware of the laws in each state in which your patients are located and to practice according to the requirements of these laws. This often requires consultation with an experienced health care attorney who is knowledgeable about the use of telemedicine and who can help you with issues surrounding:

• Malpractice insurance. It is an important first step to contact your practice’s malpractice insurance carrier and confirm coverage for telemedicine visits. Telemedicine visits are considered the same as in-person visits when determining scope of practice and malpractice liability. Nevertheless, a best practice is to have written verification from your malpractice carrier about the types of telemedicine services and claims for which your ObGyn practice is covered. Additionally, if you care for patients virtually who live in a state in which you are not licensed, check with your carrier to determine if potential claims will be covered.
• Corporate practice laws. These laws require that your practice be governed by a health care professional and not someone with a nonmedical background. This becomes important if you are looking to create a virtual practice in another state. States that prohibit the corporate practice of medicine have state-specific mandates that require strict adherence. Consult with a health care attorney before entering into a business arrangement with a nonphysician or corporate entity.
• Delegation agreement requirements. These laws require physician collaboration and/or supervision of allied health care workers such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) and may limit the number of allied health care providers that a physician may supervise. Many states are allowing allied health care workers to practice at the top of their license, but this is still state specific. Thus, it is an important issue to consider, especially for practices that rely heavily on the services of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), for example, who have a broad scope of practice and who may be qualified to care for many common ObGyn problems.
• Informed consent requirements. Some states have no requirements regarding consent for a virtual visit. Others require either written or verbal consent. In states that do not require informed consent, it is best practice to nevertheless obtain either written or oral consent and to document in the patient’s record that consent was obtained before initiating a virtual visit. The consent should follow state-mandated disclosures, as well as the practice’s policies regarding billing, scheduling, and cancellations of telemedicine visits.
• Interstate licensing laws. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and state licensure waivers are in place to allow physicians to care for patients outside the physician’s home state, but these waivers likely will be lifted postpandemic. Once waivers are lifted, physicians will need to be licensed not only in the state in which they practice but also in the state where the patient is located at the time of treatment. Even physicians who practice in states that belong to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact² must apply for and obtain a license to practice within Compact member states. Membership in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact expedites the licensure process, but does not alleviate the need to obtain a license to practice in each member state. To ensure compliance with interstate licensure laws, seek advice from a health care attorney specializing in telemedicine.
• Drug monitoring laws. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008³ implemented a requirement that physicians have at least one in-person, face-to-face visit with patients before prescribing a controlled substance for the first time. Because state laws may vary, we suggest consulting with a health care attorney to understand your state’s requirements for prescribing controlled substances to new patients and when using telemedicine (see “Prescription drugs” at https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/prescription.html for more information).
• Data privacy and security. From a content perspective, health care data and personally identifiable information are extremely rich, which makes electronic health records (EHRs), or the digital form of patients’ medical histories and other data, particularly tempting targets for hackers and cyber criminals. We caution that services such as Facetime and Skype are not encrypted; they have been granted waivers for telemedicine use, but these waivers are probably not going to be permanent once the COVID-19 crisis passes.
• HIPAA compliance. Generally—and certainly under normal circumstances—telemedicine is subject to the same rules governing protected health information (PHI) as any other technology and process used in physician practices. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule includes guidelines on telemedicine and stipulates that only authorized users should have access to ePHI, that a system of secure communication must be established to protect the security of ePHI, and that a system to monitor communications must be maintained, among other requirements.⁴ Third parties that provide telemedicine, data storage, and other services, with a few exceptions, must have a business associate agreement (BAA) with a covered entity. Covered entities include health care providers, health plans, and health and health care clearinghouses. Such an agreement should include specific language that ensures that HIPAA requirements will be met and that governs permitted and required uses of PHI, strictly limits other uses of PHI, and establishes appropriate safeguards and steps that must be taken in the event of a breach or disallowed disclosure of PHI. Best practice requires that providers establish robust protocols, policies, and processes for handling sensitive information.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, certain HIPAA restrictions relating to telemedicine have been temporarily waived by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). More specifically, HHS Secretary Alex Azar has exercised his authority to waive sanctions against covered hospitals for noncompliance with requirements: to obtain a patient’s consent to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care, to distribute a notice of privacy practices, to request privacy restrictions, to request confidential communications, and the use of nonpublic facing audio and video communications products, among others.⁵ These are temporary measures only; once the national public health emergency has passed or at the HHS Secretary’s discretion based on new developments, this position on discretionary nonenforcement may end.

Continue to: Crisis creates opportunity: The future of telemedicine...

Crisis creates opportunity: The future of telemedicine

It was just a few years ago when the use of telemedicine was relegated to treating patients in only rural areas or those located a great distance from brick and mortar practices. But the pandemic, along with the coincident relaxation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) requirements for conducting telemedicine visits has made the technology highly attractive to ObGyns who can now treat many patients 24/7 from their homes using laptops and even mobile devices. In addition, the pandemic has prompted an expansion of current procedural terminology (CPT) codes that makes it possible to bill patients for telemedicine services and be appropriately compensated.

Thus, as awful as COVID-19 is, we can conclude that it has provided us with opportunities. We predict that when the crisis has abated, although the current relaxation of HIPAA guidelines will probably be rescinded, restrictions will not likely return to precoronavirus status; changes will certainly be made, and telemedicine will likely become part and parcel of caring for ObGyn patients.

Telemedicine has been used successfully for years to improve patient access to medical care while reducing health care costs. In 2016, an estimated 61% of US health care institutions and 40% to 50% of US hospitals used telemedicine.⁶ And according to the results of a survey of America’s physicians conducted in April 2020, almost half (48%) are treating patients through telemedicine, which is up from just 18% 2 years ago.⁷

Letting loose the genie in the bottle

Widespread use of telemedicine traditionally has been limited by low reimbursement rates and interstate licensing and practice issues, but we predict that the use of telemedicine is going to significantly increase in the future. Here’s why:⁸ Disruptive innovation was defined by Professor Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School in 1997.⁹ Disruptive innovation explains the process by which a disruptive force spurs the development of simple, convenient, and affordable solutions that then replace processes that are expensive and complicated. According to Christensen, a critical element of the process is a technology that makes a product or service more accessible to a larger number of people while reducing cost and increasing ease of use. For example, innovations making equipment for dialysis cheaper and simpler helped make it possible to administer the treatment in neighborhood clinics, rather than in centralized hospitals, thus disrupting the hospital’s share of the dialysis business.

The concept of telemedicine and the technology for its implementation have been available for more than 15 years. However, it was the coronavirus that released the genie from the bottle, serving as the disruptive force to release the innovation. Telemedicine has demonstrated that the technology offers solutions that address patients’ urgent, unmet needs for access to care at an affordable price and that enhances the productivity of the ObGyn. The result is simple, convenient, and affordable; patients can readily access the medical care they need to effectively maintain their health or manage conditions that arise.

Telemedicine has reached a level of critical mass. Data suggest that patients, especially younger ones, have accepted and appreciate the use of this technology.¹⁰ It gives patients more opportunities to receive health care in their homes or at work where they feel more comfortable and less anxious than they do in physicians’ offices.

Several other health care issues may be altered by telemedicine.

The physician shortage. If the data are to be believed, there will be a significant shortage of physicians—and perhaps ObGyns—in the near future.¹¹ Telemedicine can help the problem by making it possible to provide medical care not only in rural areas where there are no ObGyns but also in urban areas where a shortage may be looming.

Continuing medical education (CME). CME is moving from large, expensive, in-person conferences to virtual conferences and online learning.

The American health care budget is bloated with expenses exceeding $3 trillion.¹² Telemedicine can help reduce health care costs by facilitating patient appointments that do not require office staff or many of the overhead expenses associated with brick and mortar operations. Telemedicine reduces the financial impact of patient no-shows. Because patients are keen on participating, the use of telemedicine likely will improve patient engagement and clinical outcomes. Telemedicine already has a reputation of reducing unnecessary office and emergency room visits and hospital admissions.¹³

Clinical trials. One of the obstacles to overcome in the early stages of a clinical trial is finding participants. Telemedicine will make patient recruitment more straightforward. And because telemedicine makes distance from the office a nonissue, recruiters will be less restricted by geographic boundaries.

In addition, telemedicine allows for the participants of the trial to stay in their homes most of the time while wearing remote monitoring devices. Such devices would enable trial researchers to spot deviations from patients’ baseline readings.

The bottom line

COVID-19 has provided the opportunity for us to see how telemedicine can contribute to reducing the spread of infectious diseases by protecting physicians, their staff, and patients themselves. Once the COVID-19 crisis has passed, it is likely that telemedicine will continue to move health care delivery from the hospital or clinic into the home. The growth and integration of information and communication technologies into health care delivery holds great potential for patients, providers, and payers in health systems of the future. ●

In the first 2 articles of this series, “Telemedicine: A primer for today’s ObGyn” and “Telemedicine: Common hurdles and proper coding for ObGyns,” which appeared in the May and June issues of OBG Management, we discussed caring for patients without face-to-face visits and that virtual visits are an opportunity to provide good care in a world such as that created by COVID-19. We also discussed which patients are the most appropriate candidates for telemedicine, as well as how to properly code virtual visits so that you are paid for your time and service. This third article addresses the legal concerns and caveats of using telemedicine and makes a prediction for the future of virtual health care.

Legal issues surrounding telemedicine

There are numerous legal, regulatory, and compliance issues that existed before the pandemic that likely will continue to be of concern postpandemic. Although the recent 1135 waiver (allowing Medicare to pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth)¹ and other regulations are now in place for almost every aspect of telemedicine, virtual medicine is not a free-for-all (even though it may seem like it). Practicing ethical telemedicine entails abiding by numerous federal and state-specific laws and requirements. It is important to be aware of the laws in each state in which your patients are located and to practice according to the requirements of these laws. This often requires consultation with an experienced health care attorney who is knowledgeable about the use of telemedicine and who can help you with issues surrounding:

• Malpractice insurance. It is an important first step to contact your practice’s malpractice insurance carrier and confirm coverage for telemedicine visits. Telemedicine visits are considered the same as in-person visits when determining scope of practice and malpractice liability. Nevertheless, a best practice is to have written verification from your malpractice carrier about the types of telemedicine services and claims for which your ObGyn practice is covered. Additionally, if you care for patients virtually who live in a state in which you are not licensed, check with your carrier to determine if potential claims will be covered.
• Corporate practice laws. These laws require that your practice be governed by a health care professional and not someone with a nonmedical background. This becomes important if you are looking to create a virtual practice in another state. States that prohibit the corporate practice of medicine have state-specific mandates that require strict adherence. Consult with a health care attorney before entering into a business arrangement with a nonphysician or corporate entity.
• Delegation agreement requirements. These laws require physician collaboration and/or supervision of allied health care workers such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) and may limit the number of allied health care providers that a physician may supervise. Many states are allowing allied health care workers to practice at the top of their license, but this is still state specific. Thus, it is an important issue to consider, especially for practices that rely heavily on the services of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), for example, who have a broad scope of practice and who may be qualified to care for many common ObGyn problems.
• Informed consent requirements. Some states have no requirements regarding consent for a virtual visit. Others require either written or verbal consent. In states that do not require informed consent, it is best practice to nevertheless obtain either written or oral consent and to document in the patient’s record that consent was obtained before initiating a virtual visit. The consent should follow state-mandated disclosures, as well as the practice’s policies regarding billing, scheduling, and cancellations of telemedicine visits.
• Interstate licensing laws. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and state licensure waivers are in place to allow physicians to care for patients outside the physician’s home state, but these waivers likely will be lifted postpandemic. Once waivers are lifted, physicians will need to be licensed not only in the state in which they practice but also in the state where the patient is located at the time of treatment. Even physicians who practice in states that belong to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact² must apply for and obtain a license to practice within Compact member states. Membership in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact expedites the licensure process, but does not alleviate the need to obtain a license to practice in each member state. To ensure compliance with interstate licensure laws, seek advice from a health care attorney specializing in telemedicine.
• Drug monitoring laws. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008³ implemented a requirement that physicians have at least one in-person, face-to-face visit with patients before prescribing a controlled substance for the first time. Because state laws may vary, we suggest consulting with a health care attorney to understand your state’s requirements for prescribing controlled substances to new patients and when using telemedicine (see “Prescription drugs” at https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/prescription.html for more information).
• Data privacy and security. From a content perspective, health care data and personally identifiable information are extremely rich, which makes electronic health records (EHRs), or the digital form of patients’ medical histories and other data, particularly tempting targets for hackers and cyber criminals. We caution that services such as Facetime and Skype are not encrypted; they have been granted waivers for telemedicine use, but these waivers are probably not going to be permanent once the COVID-19 crisis passes.
• HIPAA compliance. Generally—and certainly under normal circumstances—telemedicine is subject to the same rules governing protected health information (PHI) as any other technology and process used in physician practices. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule includes guidelines on telemedicine and stipulates that only authorized users should have access to ePHI, that a system of secure communication must be established to protect the security of ePHI, and that a system to monitor communications must be maintained, among other requirements.⁴ Third parties that provide telemedicine, data storage, and other services, with a few exceptions, must have a business associate agreement (BAA) with a covered entity. Covered entities include health care providers, health plans, and health and health care clearinghouses. Such an agreement should include specific language that ensures that HIPAA requirements will be met and that governs permitted and required uses of PHI, strictly limits other uses of PHI, and establishes appropriate safeguards and steps that must be taken in the event of a breach or disallowed disclosure of PHI. Best practice requires that providers establish robust protocols, policies, and processes for handling sensitive information.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, certain HIPAA restrictions relating to telemedicine have been temporarily waived by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). More specifically, HHS Secretary Alex Azar has exercised his authority to waive sanctions against covered hospitals for noncompliance with requirements: to obtain a patient’s consent to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care, to distribute a notice of privacy practices, to request privacy restrictions, to request confidential communications, and the use of nonpublic facing audio and video communications products, among others.⁵ These are temporary measures only; once the national public health emergency has passed or at the HHS Secretary’s discretion based on new developments, this position on discretionary nonenforcement may end.

Continue to: Crisis creates opportunity: The future of telemedicine...

Crisis creates opportunity: The future of telemedicine

It was just a few years ago when the use of telemedicine was relegated to treating patients in only rural areas or those located a great distance from brick and mortar practices. But the pandemic, along with the coincident relaxation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) requirements for conducting telemedicine visits has made the technology highly attractive to ObGyns who can now treat many patients 24/7 from their homes using laptops and even mobile devices. In addition, the pandemic has prompted an expansion of current procedural terminology (CPT) codes that makes it possible to bill patients for telemedicine services and be appropriately compensated.

Thus, as awful as COVID-19 is, we can conclude that it has provided us with opportunities. We predict that when the crisis has abated, although the current relaxation of HIPAA guidelines will probably be rescinded, restrictions will not likely return to precoronavirus status; changes will certainly be made, and telemedicine will likely become part and parcel of caring for ObGyn patients.

Telemedicine has been used successfully for years to improve patient access to medical care while reducing health care costs. In 2016, an estimated 61% of US health care institutions and 40% to 50% of US hospitals used telemedicine.⁶ And according to the results of a survey of America’s physicians conducted in April 2020, almost half (48%) are treating patients through telemedicine, which is up from just 18% 2 years ago.⁷

Letting loose the genie in the bottle

Widespread use of telemedicine traditionally has been limited by low reimbursement rates and interstate licensing and practice issues, but we predict that the use of telemedicine is going to significantly increase in the future. Here’s why:⁸ Disruptive innovation was defined by Professor Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School in 1997.⁹ Disruptive innovation explains the process by which a disruptive force spurs the development of simple, convenient, and affordable solutions that then replace processes that are expensive and complicated. According to Christensen, a critical element of the process is a technology that makes a product or service more accessible to a larger number of people while reducing cost and increasing ease of use. For example, innovations making equipment for dialysis cheaper and simpler helped make it possible to administer the treatment in neighborhood clinics, rather than in centralized hospitals, thus disrupting the hospital’s share of the dialysis business.

The concept of telemedicine and the technology for its implementation have been available for more than 15 years. However, it was the coronavirus that released the genie from the bottle, serving as the disruptive force to release the innovation. Telemedicine has demonstrated that the technology offers solutions that address patients’ urgent, unmet needs for access to care at an affordable price and that enhances the productivity of the ObGyn. The result is simple, convenient, and affordable; patients can readily access the medical care they need to effectively maintain their health or manage conditions that arise.

Telemedicine has reached a level of critical mass. Data suggest that patients, especially younger ones, have accepted and appreciate the use of this technology.¹⁰ It gives patients more opportunities to receive health care in their homes or at work where they feel more comfortable and less anxious than they do in physicians’ offices.

Several other health care issues may be altered by telemedicine.

The physician shortage. If the data are to be believed, there will be a significant shortage of physicians—and perhaps ObGyns—in the near future.¹¹ Telemedicine can help the problem by making it possible to provide medical care not only in rural areas where there are no ObGyns but also in urban areas where a shortage may be looming.

Continuing medical education (CME). CME is moving from large, expensive, in-person conferences to virtual conferences and online learning.

The American health care budget is bloated with expenses exceeding $3 trillion.¹² Telemedicine can help reduce health care costs by facilitating patient appointments that do not require office staff or many of the overhead expenses associated with brick and mortar operations. Telemedicine reduces the financial impact of patient no-shows. Because patients are keen on participating, the use of telemedicine likely will improve patient engagement and clinical outcomes. Telemedicine already has a reputation of reducing unnecessary office and emergency room visits and hospital admissions.¹³

Clinical trials. One of the obstacles to overcome in the early stages of a clinical trial is finding participants. Telemedicine will make patient recruitment more straightforward. And because telemedicine makes distance from the office a nonissue, recruiters will be less restricted by geographic boundaries.

In addition, telemedicine allows for the participants of the trial to stay in their homes most of the time while wearing remote monitoring devices. Such devices would enable trial researchers to spot deviations from patients’ baseline readings.

The bottom line

COVID-19 has provided the opportunity for us to see how telemedicine can contribute to reducing the spread of infectious diseases by protecting physicians, their staff, and patients themselves. Once the COVID-19 crisis has passed, it is likely that telemedicine will continue to move health care delivery from the hospital or clinic into the home. The growth and integration of information and communication technologies into health care delivery holds great potential for patients, providers, and payers in health systems of the future. ●

In the first 2 articles of this series, “Telemedicine: A primer for today’s ObGyn” and “Telemedicine: Common hurdles and proper coding for ObGyns,” which appeared in the May and June issues of OBG Management, we discussed caring for patients without face-to-face visits and that virtual visits are an opportunity to provide good care in a world such as that created by COVID-19. We also discussed which patients are the most appropriate candidates for telemedicine, as well as how to properly code virtual visits so that you are paid for your time and service. This third article addresses the legal concerns and caveats of using telemedicine and makes a prediction for the future of virtual health care.

Legal issues surrounding telemedicine

There are numerous legal, regulatory, and compliance issues that existed before the pandemic that likely will continue to be of concern postpandemic. Although the recent 1135 waiver (allowing Medicare to pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth)¹ and other regulations are now in place for almost every aspect of telemedicine, virtual medicine is not a free-for-all (even though it may seem like it). Practicing ethical telemedicine entails abiding by numerous federal and state-specific laws and requirements. It is important to be aware of the laws in each state in which your patients are located and to practice according to the requirements of these laws. This often requires consultation with an experienced health care attorney who is knowledgeable about the use of telemedicine and who can help you with issues surrounding:

• Malpractice insurance. It is an important first step to contact your practice’s malpractice insurance carrier and confirm coverage for telemedicine visits. Telemedicine visits are considered the same as in-person visits when determining scope of practice and malpractice liability. Nevertheless, a best practice is to have written verification from your malpractice carrier about the types of telemedicine services and claims for which your ObGyn practice is covered. Additionally, if you care for patients virtually who live in a state in which you are not licensed, check with your carrier to determine if potential claims will be covered.
• Corporate practice laws. These laws require that your practice be governed by a health care professional and not someone with a nonmedical background. This becomes important if you are looking to create a virtual practice in another state. States that prohibit the corporate practice of medicine have state-specific mandates that require strict adherence. Consult with a health care attorney before entering into a business arrangement with a nonphysician or corporate entity.
• Delegation agreement requirements. These laws require physician collaboration and/or supervision of allied health care workers such as nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) and may limit the number of allied health care providers that a physician may supervise. Many states are allowing allied health care workers to practice at the top of their license, but this is still state specific. Thus, it is an important issue to consider, especially for practices that rely heavily on the services of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), for example, who have a broad scope of practice and who may be qualified to care for many common ObGyn problems.
• Informed consent requirements. Some states have no requirements regarding consent for a virtual visit. Others require either written or verbal consent. In states that do not require informed consent, it is best practice to nevertheless obtain either written or oral consent and to document in the patient’s record that consent was obtained before initiating a virtual visit. The consent should follow state-mandated disclosures, as well as the practice’s policies regarding billing, scheduling, and cancellations of telemedicine visits.
• Interstate licensing laws. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and state licensure waivers are in place to allow physicians to care for patients outside the physician’s home state, but these waivers likely will be lifted postpandemic. Once waivers are lifted, physicians will need to be licensed not only in the state in which they practice but also in the state where the patient is located at the time of treatment. Even physicians who practice in states that belong to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact² must apply for and obtain a license to practice within Compact member states. Membership in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact expedites the licensure process, but does not alleviate the need to obtain a license to practice in each member state. To ensure compliance with interstate licensure laws, seek advice from a health care attorney specializing in telemedicine.
• Drug monitoring laws. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008³ implemented a requirement that physicians have at least one in-person, face-to-face visit with patients before prescribing a controlled substance for the first time. Because state laws may vary, we suggest consulting with a health care attorney to understand your state’s requirements for prescribing controlled substances to new patients and when using telemedicine (see “Prescription drugs” at https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/prescription.html for more information).
• Data privacy and security. From a content perspective, health care data and personally identifiable information are extremely rich, which makes electronic health records (EHRs), or the digital form of patients’ medical histories and other data, particularly tempting targets for hackers and cyber criminals. We caution that services such as Facetime and Skype are not encrypted; they have been granted waivers for telemedicine use, but these waivers are probably not going to be permanent once the COVID-19 crisis passes.
• HIPAA compliance. Generally—and certainly under normal circumstances—telemedicine is subject to the same rules governing protected health information (PHI) as any other technology and process used in physician practices. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule includes guidelines on telemedicine and stipulates that only authorized users should have access to ePHI, that a system of secure communication must be established to protect the security of ePHI, and that a system to monitor communications must be maintained, among other requirements.⁴ Third parties that provide telemedicine, data storage, and other services, with a few exceptions, must have a business associate agreement (BAA) with a covered entity. Covered entities include health care providers, health plans, and health and health care clearinghouses. Such an agreement should include specific language that ensures that HIPAA requirements will be met and that governs permitted and required uses of PHI, strictly limits other uses of PHI, and establishes appropriate safeguards and steps that must be taken in the event of a breach or disallowed disclosure of PHI. Best practice requires that providers establish robust protocols, policies, and processes for handling sensitive information.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, certain HIPAA restrictions relating to telemedicine have been temporarily waived by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). More specifically, HHS Secretary Alex Azar has exercised his authority to waive sanctions against covered hospitals for noncompliance with requirements: to obtain a patient’s consent to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care, to distribute a notice of privacy practices, to request privacy restrictions, to request confidential communications, and the use of nonpublic facing audio and video communications products, among others.⁵ These are temporary measures only; once the national public health emergency has passed or at the HHS Secretary’s discretion based on new developments, this position on discretionary nonenforcement may end.

Continue to: Crisis creates opportunity: The future of telemedicine...

Crisis creates opportunity: The future of telemedicine

It was just a few years ago when the use of telemedicine was relegated to treating patients in only rural areas or those located a great distance from brick and mortar practices. But the pandemic, along with the coincident relaxation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) requirements for conducting telemedicine visits has made the technology highly attractive to ObGyns who can now treat many patients 24/7 from their homes using laptops and even mobile devices. In addition, the pandemic has prompted an expansion of current procedural terminology (CPT) codes that makes it possible to bill patients for telemedicine services and be appropriately compensated.

Thus, as awful as COVID-19 is, we can conclude that it has provided us with opportunities. We predict that when the crisis has abated, although the current relaxation of HIPAA guidelines will probably be rescinded, restrictions will not likely return to precoronavirus status; changes will certainly be made, and telemedicine will likely become part and parcel of caring for ObGyn patients.

Telemedicine has been used successfully for years to improve patient access to medical care while reducing health care costs. In 2016, an estimated 61% of US health care institutions and 40% to 50% of US hospitals used telemedicine.⁶ And according to the results of a survey of America’s physicians conducted in April 2020, almost half (48%) are treating patients through telemedicine, which is up from just 18% 2 years ago.⁷

Letting loose the genie in the bottle

Widespread use of telemedicine traditionally has been limited by low reimbursement rates and interstate licensing and practice issues, but we predict that the use of telemedicine is going to significantly increase in the future. Here’s why:⁸ Disruptive innovation was defined by Professor Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School in 1997.⁹ Disruptive innovation explains the process by which a disruptive force spurs the development of simple, convenient, and affordable solutions that then replace processes that are expensive and complicated. According to Christensen, a critical element of the process is a technology that makes a product or service more accessible to a larger number of people while reducing cost and increasing ease of use. For example, innovations making equipment for dialysis cheaper and simpler helped make it possible to administer the treatment in neighborhood clinics, rather than in centralized hospitals, thus disrupting the hospital’s share of the dialysis business.

The concept of telemedicine and the technology for its implementation have been available for more than 15 years. However, it was the coronavirus that released the genie from the bottle, serving as the disruptive force to release the innovation. Telemedicine has demonstrated that the technology offers solutions that address patients’ urgent, unmet needs for access to care at an affordable price and that enhances the productivity of the ObGyn. The result is simple, convenient, and affordable; patients can readily access the medical care they need to effectively maintain their health or manage conditions that arise.

Telemedicine has reached a level of critical mass. Data suggest that patients, especially younger ones, have accepted and appreciate the use of this technology.¹⁰ It gives patients more opportunities to receive health care in their homes or at work where they feel more comfortable and less anxious than they do in physicians’ offices.

Several other health care issues may be altered by telemedicine.

The physician shortage. If the data are to be believed, there will be a significant shortage of physicians—and perhaps ObGyns—in the near future.¹¹ Telemedicine can help the problem by making it possible to provide medical care not only in rural areas where there are no ObGyns but also in urban areas where a shortage may be looming.

Continuing medical education (CME). CME is moving from large, expensive, in-person conferences to virtual conferences and online learning.

The American health care budget is bloated with expenses exceeding $3 trillion.¹² Telemedicine can help reduce health care costs by facilitating patient appointments that do not require office staff or many of the overhead expenses associated with brick and mortar operations. Telemedicine reduces the financial impact of patient no-shows. Because patients are keen on participating, the use of telemedicine likely will improve patient engagement and clinical outcomes. Telemedicine already has a reputation of reducing unnecessary office and emergency room visits and hospital admissions.¹³

Clinical trials. One of the obstacles to overcome in the early stages of a clinical trial is finding participants. Telemedicine will make patient recruitment more straightforward. And because telemedicine makes distance from the office a nonissue, recruiters will be less restricted by geographic boundaries.

In addition, telemedicine allows for the participants of the trial to stay in their homes most of the time while wearing remote monitoring devices. Such devices would enable trial researchers to spot deviations from patients’ baseline readings.

The bottom line

COVID-19 has provided the opportunity for us to see how telemedicine can contribute to reducing the spread of infectious diseases by protecting physicians, their staff, and patients themselves. Once the COVID-19 crisis has passed, it is likely that telemedicine will continue to move health care delivery from the hospital or clinic into the home. The growth and integration of information and communication technologies into health care delivery holds great potential for patients, providers, and payers in health systems of the future. ●

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a metamorphosis in human interactions. One way we have adapted is our increased use of virtual platforms for tasks such as lectures, meetings, interviews, conferences, and patient care via telemedicine.¹ Virtual platforms have allowed for the continuation of existing programs and facilitated new collaborations ranging from international webinars on patient care to national lectures for residents and fellows in ObGyn. New virtual platforms continue to emerge. We present here a review of free virtual communication apps available to the ObGyn care provider.

We used the term “videoconference” to search the Apple and Google Play app stores between May 29, 2020, and June 1, 2020. A total of 25 apps that offered both audio and videoconferencing were identified. All were free for download, but the majority required an ongoing paid subscription fee for the service. Thirteen programs were either completely free or offered a free version of their services. Based on our review and a systematic analysis, we selected 5 apps to feature here: Cisco Webex Meetings, Free Conference Call, Jitsi Meet, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom.

Featured videoconferencing apps

Cisco Webex Meetings and Free Conference Call offer an easy video meeting setup from both a smartphone and a desktop app. They provide seamless access to functions on the virtual main page, including chat with other participants in the meeting and screen sharing. These apps both require screen recording in order to share screens.

Jitsi Meet is a web app usable on an iPhone or Android as well as on a desktop through the meet.jit.si website. No account is required. On the app or website, the user creates a meeting name and shares the unique URL or meeting name with invitees to join the videoconference. The mobile app and website both offer a “raise your hand” feature, full screen and/or gallery (tile) view, group chat, and live streaming. In both settings, users may lock the meeting and require a password. Additional features through the website include screen sharing, recording the meeting, blurred background, muting all participants, and sharing YouTube videos.

The Microsoft Teams app asks you the purpose of signing up on the website—“use for school,” “with friends and family,” or “for work.” If you choose “with friends and family,” the app directs you to Skype. Choosing the “for work” function directs you to complete your free registration. Microsoft Teams requires participants to create teams; thus, others participating in the videoconference need to have their own account. However, “guest access” also is available.

On the Zoom platform, immediate and scheduled meetings can be set up on the app as well as on the website, or directly on Microsoft Outlook and Google Calendar if the plug-in has been established. The desktop and smartphone apps are similar in function and provide access to personalized settings.

For patient care, since HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) protection is a concern, we recommend following guidelines at the user’s institution regarding use of apps such as Epic Haiku for telehealth visits. For teaching and interacting with colleagues, we recommend Cisco Webex, Free Conference Call, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom, keeping in mind the time limitations of each app for the free account.

Overall, these 5 apps are easy to set up and user-friendly. Deciding which program to choose will depend on the number of participants allowed for a meeting and the duration of the meeting, as these two factors seem to be the most constraining among the free videoconferencing apps. ●

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a metamorphosis in human interactions. One way we have adapted is our increased use of virtual platforms for tasks such as lectures, meetings, interviews, conferences, and patient care via telemedicine.¹ Virtual platforms have allowed for the continuation of existing programs and facilitated new collaborations ranging from international webinars on patient care to national lectures for residents and fellows in ObGyn. New virtual platforms continue to emerge. We present here a review of free virtual communication apps available to the ObGyn care provider.

We used the term “videoconference” to search the Apple and Google Play app stores between May 29, 2020, and June 1, 2020. A total of 25 apps that offered both audio and videoconferencing were identified. All were free for download, but the majority required an ongoing paid subscription fee for the service. Thirteen programs were either completely free or offered a free version of their services. Based on our review and a systematic analysis, we selected 5 apps to feature here: Cisco Webex Meetings, Free Conference Call, Jitsi Meet, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom.

Featured videoconferencing apps

Cisco Webex Meetings and Free Conference Call offer an easy video meeting setup from both a smartphone and a desktop app. They provide seamless access to functions on the virtual main page, including chat with other participants in the meeting and screen sharing. These apps both require screen recording in order to share screens.

Jitsi Meet is a web app usable on an iPhone or Android as well as on a desktop through the meet.jit.si website. No account is required. On the app or website, the user creates a meeting name and shares the unique URL or meeting name with invitees to join the videoconference. The mobile app and website both offer a “raise your hand” feature, full screen and/or gallery (tile) view, group chat, and live streaming. In both settings, users may lock the meeting and require a password. Additional features through the website include screen sharing, recording the meeting, blurred background, muting all participants, and sharing YouTube videos.

The Microsoft Teams app asks you the purpose of signing up on the website—“use for school,” “with friends and family,” or “for work.” If you choose “with friends and family,” the app directs you to Skype. Choosing the “for work” function directs you to complete your free registration. Microsoft Teams requires participants to create teams; thus, others participating in the videoconference need to have their own account. However, “guest access” also is available.

On the Zoom platform, immediate and scheduled meetings can be set up on the app as well as on the website, or directly on Microsoft Outlook and Google Calendar if the plug-in has been established. The desktop and smartphone apps are similar in function and provide access to personalized settings.

For patient care, since HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) protection is a concern, we recommend following guidelines at the user’s institution regarding use of apps such as Epic Haiku for telehealth visits. For teaching and interacting with colleagues, we recommend Cisco Webex, Free Conference Call, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom, keeping in mind the time limitations of each app for the free account.

Overall, these 5 apps are easy to set up and user-friendly. Deciding which program to choose will depend on the number of participants allowed for a meeting and the duration of the meeting, as these two factors seem to be the most constraining among the free videoconferencing apps. ●

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a metamorphosis in human interactions. One way we have adapted is our increased use of virtual platforms for tasks such as lectures, meetings, interviews, conferences, and patient care via telemedicine.¹ Virtual platforms have allowed for the continuation of existing programs and facilitated new collaborations ranging from international webinars on patient care to national lectures for residents and fellows in ObGyn. New virtual platforms continue to emerge. We present here a review of free virtual communication apps available to the ObGyn care provider.

We used the term “videoconference” to search the Apple and Google Play app stores between May 29, 2020, and June 1, 2020. A total of 25 apps that offered both audio and videoconferencing were identified. All were free for download, but the majority required an ongoing paid subscription fee for the service. Thirteen programs were either completely free or offered a free version of their services. Based on our review and a systematic analysis, we selected 5 apps to feature here: Cisco Webex Meetings, Free Conference Call, Jitsi Meet, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom.

Featured videoconferencing apps

Cisco Webex Meetings and Free Conference Call offer an easy video meeting setup from both a smartphone and a desktop app. They provide seamless access to functions on the virtual main page, including chat with other participants in the meeting and screen sharing. These apps both require screen recording in order to share screens.

Jitsi Meet is a web app usable on an iPhone or Android as well as on a desktop through the meet.jit.si website. No account is required. On the app or website, the user creates a meeting name and shares the unique URL or meeting name with invitees to join the videoconference. The mobile app and website both offer a “raise your hand” feature, full screen and/or gallery (tile) view, group chat, and live streaming. In both settings, users may lock the meeting and require a password. Additional features through the website include screen sharing, recording the meeting, blurred background, muting all participants, and sharing YouTube videos.

The Microsoft Teams app asks you the purpose of signing up on the website—“use for school,” “with friends and family,” or “for work.” If you choose “with friends and family,” the app directs you to Skype. Choosing the “for work” function directs you to complete your free registration. Microsoft Teams requires participants to create teams; thus, others participating in the videoconference need to have their own account. However, “guest access” also is available.

On the Zoom platform, immediate and scheduled meetings can be set up on the app as well as on the website, or directly on Microsoft Outlook and Google Calendar if the plug-in has been established. The desktop and smartphone apps are similar in function and provide access to personalized settings.

For patient care, since HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) protection is a concern, we recommend following guidelines at the user’s institution regarding use of apps such as Epic Haiku for telehealth visits. For teaching and interacting with colleagues, we recommend Cisco Webex, Free Conference Call, Microsoft Teams, and Zoom, keeping in mind the time limitations of each app for the free account.

Overall, these 5 apps are easy to set up and user-friendly. Deciding which program to choose will depend on the number of participants allowed for a meeting and the duration of the meeting, as these two factors seem to be the most constraining among the free videoconferencing apps. ●

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

For primary care practices, Sanjay Basu, MD, and colleagues calculated the losses at $67,774 in gross revenue per physician (interquartile range, $80,577-$54,990), with a national toll of $15.1 billion this year.

That’s without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Dr. Basu, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

When they added a theoretical stay-at-home order for November and December, the estimated loss climbed to $85,666 in gross revenue per full-time physician, with a loss of $19.1 billion nationally. The findings were published online in Health Affairs.

Meanwhile, clinical losses from canceled outpatient care are piling up as well, according to a study by Ateev Mehrotra, MD, associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues, which calculated the clinical losses in outpatient care.

“The ‘cumulative deficit’ in visits over the last 3 months (March 15 to June 20) is nearly 40%,” the authors wrote. They reported their findings in an article published online June 25 by the Commonwealth Fund.

When examined by specialty, Dr. Mehrotra and colleagues found that appointment rebound rates have been uneven. Whereas dermatology and rheumatology visits have already recovered, a couple of specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15 and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.
 

Much depends on the future of telehealth

Closing the financial and care gaps will depend largely on changing payment models for outpatient care and assuring adequate and enduring reimbursement for telehealth, according to experts.

COVID-19 has put a spotlight on the fragility of a fee-for-service system that depends on in-person visits for stability, Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Several things need to happen to change the outlook for outpatient care, he said.

A need mentioned in both studies is that the COVID-19 waivers that make it possible for telehealth visits to be reimbursed like other visits must continue after the pandemic. Those assurances are critical as practices decide whether to invest in telemedicine.

If U.S. practices revert as of Oct. 1, 2020, to the pre–COVID-19 payment system for telehealth, national losses for the year would be more than double the current estimates.

“Given the number of active primary care physicians (n = 223,125), we estimated that the cost would be $38.7 billion (IQR, $31.1 billion-$48.3 billion) at a national level to neutralize the gross revenue losses caused by COVID-19 among primary care practices, without subjecting staff to furloughs,” Dr. Basu and colleagues wrote.

In addition to stabilizing telehealth payment models, another need to improve the outlook for outpatient care is more effective communication that in-person care is safe again in regions with protocols in place, Dr. Horn said.

However, the most important change, Dr. Horn said, is a switch to prospective lump-sum payments – payments made in advance to physicians to treat each patient in the way they and the patient deem best with the most appropriate appointment type – whether by in-person visit, phone call, text reminders, or video session.

Prospective payments would take multipayer coalitions working in conjunction with leadership on the federal level from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Horn said. Commercial payers and states (through Medicaid funds) should already have that money available with the cancellations of nonessential procedures, he said.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Dr. Horn said.
 

Visit trends still down

Calculations by Dr. Basu, who is also on the faculty at Harvard Medical School’s Center for Primary Care, and colleagues were partially informed by Dr. Mehrotra’s data on how many visits have been lost because of COVID-19.

Dr. Mehrotra said a clear message in their study is that “visit trends are not back to baseline.”

They found that the number of visits to ambulatory practices had dropped nearly 60% by early April. Since then, numbers have rebounded substantially. As of the week of June 14, overall visits, compared with baseline were down 11%. But the drops varied widely across specialties.

Dr. Mehrotra said he found particularly disturbing the drop in pediatric visits and the sharp contrast between those rates and the higher number of visits for adults. While visits for patients aged 75 and older had climbed back to just 3% below baseline, the drop seen among kids aged 3-5 years remains 43% below baseline.

“Even kids 0-2 years old are still down 30% from baseline,” he pointed out.

It’s possible that kids are getting care from other sources or perhaps are not sick as often because they are not in school. However, he added, “I do think there’s a concern that some kids are not getting the care they need for chronic illnesses such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, eczema, and psoriasis, and vaccination rates have fallen.”
 

Telemedicine rates dropping

Telemedicine was “supposed to have its shining moment,” Dr. Mehrotra said, but trends show it cannot make up the gaps of in-person care. His team’s data show a decline in telemedicine as a percentage of all visits from a high of 13.8% in mid-April to 7.4% the week of June 14.

He attributes that partially to physicians’ mixed success in getting reimbursed. “While Medicare has done a good job reimbursing, commercial payers and Medicaid plans have been mixed in their coverage.”

Some physicians who don’t get reimbursed or receive delayed or reduced payments are going back to in-person visits, Dr. Mehrotra said.

He said it’s important to remember that, before the pandemic, “telemedicine was making up 0.1% of all visits. Even if now it declines (from the April high of 13.8%) to 5% or 3%, that’s still a 30-fold increase within the course of a couple of months.”

Prospective payments would help expand the possibilities for telemedicine, he said, and could include apps and wearables and texts in addition to or instead of traditional video sessions.

Dr. Mehrotra said change won’t come fast enough for some and many practices won’t survive. “People are worried about their livelihood. This is nothing we’ve ever – at least in my career as a physician – had to focus on. Now we’re really having practices ask whether they can financially sustain themselves.”

For many, he said, the damage will be long term. “That cumulative deficit in visits – I’m not sure if it’s ever coming back. If you’re a primary care practice, you can only work so hard.”

Dr. Basu reported receiving a salary for clinical duties from HealthRIGHT360, a Federally Qualified Health Center, and Collective Health, a care management organization. Dr. Horn and Dr. Mehrotra reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally on Medscape.com.

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

For primary care practices, Sanjay Basu, MD, and colleagues calculated the losses at $67,774 in gross revenue per physician (interquartile range, $80,577-$54,990), with a national toll of $15.1 billion this year.

That’s without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Dr. Basu, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

When they added a theoretical stay-at-home order for November and December, the estimated loss climbed to $85,666 in gross revenue per full-time physician, with a loss of $19.1 billion nationally. The findings were published online in Health Affairs.

Meanwhile, clinical losses from canceled outpatient care are piling up as well, according to a study by Ateev Mehrotra, MD, associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues, which calculated the clinical losses in outpatient care.

“The ‘cumulative deficit’ in visits over the last 3 months (March 15 to June 20) is nearly 40%,” the authors wrote. They reported their findings in an article published online June 25 by the Commonwealth Fund.

When examined by specialty, Dr. Mehrotra and colleagues found that appointment rebound rates have been uneven. Whereas dermatology and rheumatology visits have already recovered, a couple of specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15 and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.
 

Much depends on the future of telehealth

Closing the financial and care gaps will depend largely on changing payment models for outpatient care and assuring adequate and enduring reimbursement for telehealth, according to experts.

COVID-19 has put a spotlight on the fragility of a fee-for-service system that depends on in-person visits for stability, Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Several things need to happen to change the outlook for outpatient care, he said.

A need mentioned in both studies is that the COVID-19 waivers that make it possible for telehealth visits to be reimbursed like other visits must continue after the pandemic. Those assurances are critical as practices decide whether to invest in telemedicine.

If U.S. practices revert as of Oct. 1, 2020, to the pre–COVID-19 payment system for telehealth, national losses for the year would be more than double the current estimates.

“Given the number of active primary care physicians (n = 223,125), we estimated that the cost would be $38.7 billion (IQR, $31.1 billion-$48.3 billion) at a national level to neutralize the gross revenue losses caused by COVID-19 among primary care practices, without subjecting staff to furloughs,” Dr. Basu and colleagues wrote.

In addition to stabilizing telehealth payment models, another need to improve the outlook for outpatient care is more effective communication that in-person care is safe again in regions with protocols in place, Dr. Horn said.

However, the most important change, Dr. Horn said, is a switch to prospective lump-sum payments – payments made in advance to physicians to treat each patient in the way they and the patient deem best with the most appropriate appointment type – whether by in-person visit, phone call, text reminders, or video session.

Prospective payments would take multipayer coalitions working in conjunction with leadership on the federal level from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Horn said. Commercial payers and states (through Medicaid funds) should already have that money available with the cancellations of nonessential procedures, he said.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Dr. Horn said.
 

Visit trends still down

Calculations by Dr. Basu, who is also on the faculty at Harvard Medical School’s Center for Primary Care, and colleagues were partially informed by Dr. Mehrotra’s data on how many visits have been lost because of COVID-19.

Dr. Mehrotra said a clear message in their study is that “visit trends are not back to baseline.”

They found that the number of visits to ambulatory practices had dropped nearly 60% by early April. Since then, numbers have rebounded substantially. As of the week of June 14, overall visits, compared with baseline were down 11%. But the drops varied widely across specialties.

Dr. Mehrotra said he found particularly disturbing the drop in pediatric visits and the sharp contrast between those rates and the higher number of visits for adults. While visits for patients aged 75 and older had climbed back to just 3% below baseline, the drop seen among kids aged 3-5 years remains 43% below baseline.

“Even kids 0-2 years old are still down 30% from baseline,” he pointed out.

It’s possible that kids are getting care from other sources or perhaps are not sick as often because they are not in school. However, he added, “I do think there’s a concern that some kids are not getting the care they need for chronic illnesses such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, eczema, and psoriasis, and vaccination rates have fallen.”
 

Telemedicine rates dropping

Telemedicine was “supposed to have its shining moment,” Dr. Mehrotra said, but trends show it cannot make up the gaps of in-person care. His team’s data show a decline in telemedicine as a percentage of all visits from a high of 13.8% in mid-April to 7.4% the week of June 14.

He attributes that partially to physicians’ mixed success in getting reimbursed. “While Medicare has done a good job reimbursing, commercial payers and Medicaid plans have been mixed in their coverage.”

Some physicians who don’t get reimbursed or receive delayed or reduced payments are going back to in-person visits, Dr. Mehrotra said.

He said it’s important to remember that, before the pandemic, “telemedicine was making up 0.1% of all visits. Even if now it declines (from the April high of 13.8%) to 5% or 3%, that’s still a 30-fold increase within the course of a couple of months.”

Prospective payments would help expand the possibilities for telemedicine, he said, and could include apps and wearables and texts in addition to or instead of traditional video sessions.

Dr. Mehrotra said change won’t come fast enough for some and many practices won’t survive. “People are worried about their livelihood. This is nothing we’ve ever – at least in my career as a physician – had to focus on. Now we’re really having practices ask whether they can financially sustain themselves.”

For many, he said, the damage will be long term. “That cumulative deficit in visits – I’m not sure if it’s ever coming back. If you’re a primary care practice, you can only work so hard.”

Dr. Basu reported receiving a salary for clinical duties from HealthRIGHT360, a Federally Qualified Health Center, and Collective Health, a care management organization. Dr. Horn and Dr. Mehrotra reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally on Medscape.com.

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

For primary care practices, Sanjay Basu, MD, and colleagues calculated the losses at $67,774 in gross revenue per physician (interquartile range, $80,577-$54,990), with a national toll of $15.1 billion this year.

That’s without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Dr. Basu, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

When they added a theoretical stay-at-home order for November and December, the estimated loss climbed to $85,666 in gross revenue per full-time physician, with a loss of $19.1 billion nationally. The findings were published online in Health Affairs.

Meanwhile, clinical losses from canceled outpatient care are piling up as well, according to a study by Ateev Mehrotra, MD, associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues, which calculated the clinical losses in outpatient care.

“The ‘cumulative deficit’ in visits over the last 3 months (March 15 to June 20) is nearly 40%,” the authors wrote. They reported their findings in an article published online June 25 by the Commonwealth Fund.

When examined by specialty, Dr. Mehrotra and colleagues found that appointment rebound rates have been uneven. Whereas dermatology and rheumatology visits have already recovered, a couple of specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15 and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.
 

Much depends on the future of telehealth

Closing the financial and care gaps will depend largely on changing payment models for outpatient care and assuring adequate and enduring reimbursement for telehealth, according to experts.

COVID-19 has put a spotlight on the fragility of a fee-for-service system that depends on in-person visits for stability, Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Several things need to happen to change the outlook for outpatient care, he said.

A need mentioned in both studies is that the COVID-19 waivers that make it possible for telehealth visits to be reimbursed like other visits must continue after the pandemic. Those assurances are critical as practices decide whether to invest in telemedicine.

If U.S. practices revert as of Oct. 1, 2020, to the pre–COVID-19 payment system for telehealth, national losses for the year would be more than double the current estimates.

“Given the number of active primary care physicians (n = 223,125), we estimated that the cost would be $38.7 billion (IQR, $31.1 billion-$48.3 billion) at a national level to neutralize the gross revenue losses caused by COVID-19 among primary care practices, without subjecting staff to furloughs,” Dr. Basu and colleagues wrote.

In addition to stabilizing telehealth payment models, another need to improve the outlook for outpatient care is more effective communication that in-person care is safe again in regions with protocols in place, Dr. Horn said.

However, the most important change, Dr. Horn said, is a switch to prospective lump-sum payments – payments made in advance to physicians to treat each patient in the way they and the patient deem best with the most appropriate appointment type – whether by in-person visit, phone call, text reminders, or video session.

Prospective payments would take multipayer coalitions working in conjunction with leadership on the federal level from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Horn said. Commercial payers and states (through Medicaid funds) should already have that money available with the cancellations of nonessential procedures, he said.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Dr. Horn said.
 

Visit trends still down

Calculations by Dr. Basu, who is also on the faculty at Harvard Medical School’s Center for Primary Care, and colleagues were partially informed by Dr. Mehrotra’s data on how many visits have been lost because of COVID-19.

Dr. Mehrotra said a clear message in their study is that “visit trends are not back to baseline.”

They found that the number of visits to ambulatory practices had dropped nearly 60% by early April. Since then, numbers have rebounded substantially. As of the week of June 14, overall visits, compared with baseline were down 11%. But the drops varied widely across specialties.

Dr. Mehrotra said he found particularly disturbing the drop in pediatric visits and the sharp contrast between those rates and the higher number of visits for adults. While visits for patients aged 75 and older had climbed back to just 3% below baseline, the drop seen among kids aged 3-5 years remains 43% below baseline.

“Even kids 0-2 years old are still down 30% from baseline,” he pointed out.

It’s possible that kids are getting care from other sources or perhaps are not sick as often because they are not in school. However, he added, “I do think there’s a concern that some kids are not getting the care they need for chronic illnesses such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, eczema, and psoriasis, and vaccination rates have fallen.”
 

Telemedicine rates dropping

Telemedicine was “supposed to have its shining moment,” Dr. Mehrotra said, but trends show it cannot make up the gaps of in-person care. His team’s data show a decline in telemedicine as a percentage of all visits from a high of 13.8% in mid-April to 7.4% the week of June 14.

He attributes that partially to physicians’ mixed success in getting reimbursed. “While Medicare has done a good job reimbursing, commercial payers and Medicaid plans have been mixed in their coverage.”

Some physicians who don’t get reimbursed or receive delayed or reduced payments are going back to in-person visits, Dr. Mehrotra said.

He said it’s important to remember that, before the pandemic, “telemedicine was making up 0.1% of all visits. Even if now it declines (from the April high of 13.8%) to 5% or 3%, that’s still a 30-fold increase within the course of a couple of months.”

Prospective payments would help expand the possibilities for telemedicine, he said, and could include apps and wearables and texts in addition to or instead of traditional video sessions.

Dr. Mehrotra said change won’t come fast enough for some and many practices won’t survive. “People are worried about their livelihood. This is nothing we’ve ever – at least in my career as a physician – had to focus on. Now we’re really having practices ask whether they can financially sustain themselves.”

For many, he said, the damage will be long term. “That cumulative deficit in visits – I’m not sure if it’s ever coming back. If you’re a primary care practice, you can only work so hard.”

Dr. Basu reported receiving a salary for clinical duties from HealthRIGHT360, a Federally Qualified Health Center, and Collective Health, a care management organization. Dr. Horn and Dr. Mehrotra reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally on Medscape.com.

Fifteen-year projections for the shortage of primary care and specialty physicians in the United States grew to between 54,000 and 139,000 in the latest annual report by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Those estimates are up from last year’s projections of a shortfall of 46,900-121,900 by 2032.

The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2018 to 2033, was the sixth annual study conducted for the AAMC by the Life Science division of global analytics firm IHS Markit.

This analysis, conducted in 2019, includes supply and demand scenarios but predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a telephone press briefing this morning, David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s president and CEO, told reporters that the pandemic has highlighted the acute effects of physician shortages.

“We’ve seen in stark detail how fragile and quickly overwhelmed America’s health care system truly is, and we’re nowhere near out of the woods with this public health emergency yet,” he said.

The persistent shortages mean people “will have ongoing difficulty accessing the care that they need, especially as we all age.”

Some of the biggest shortages will be seen in non–primary care specialists. Dr. Skorton notes that, during the pandemic, shortages of specialists in hospital settings, including critical care, emergency medicine, pulmonology, and infectious disease, are an urgent concern.

Population trends continue to be the biggest drivers of the shortage. Report authors found that by 2033, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 10.4% from 327 million to 361 million, with wide differences by age.

The under-18 population is expected to grow by 3.9%, whereas the numbers of those aged 65 and older is expected to balloon by 45.1% in that time, thus stoking demand for specialties focused on care for older Americans.

Physician age is also a large factor in the projections. More than two in five currently active physicians will be 65 or older in the next 10 years, according to the report. A wave of retirements will have a large impact on the supply of physicians.

The report explains that the projected shortages remain under predictable scenarios: an increase in the use of advanced practice nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs), more care in alternate settings such as retail clinics, and changes in payment and delivery.

According to the report, the supply of APRNs and PAs is on track to double over the next 15 years (with growth rates varying by APRN and PA specialty).

“At current rates of production, by 2033 APRN supply will grow by 276,000 [full-time equivalents (FTEs)] and PA supply by nearly 138,000 FTEs,” the report states.

However, authors acknowledge there is scant evidence on what effect these numbers will have on demand for physicians.

The report points out that if underserved communities were able to access health care in numbers similar to those without barriers imposed by where they live or what insurance they have, demand could rise beyond the projections in this report by an additional 74,000 to 145,000 physicians.
 

Stemming the shortages

The first step in addressing the shortage, Dr. Skorton said, is assuring a healthy physician pipeline to meet the demand for generations.

“One essential step that we believe Congress must take is to end the freeze that has been in place since 1997 that limits federal support for residency training of new physicians,” Skorton said.

He noted that AAMC supports the bipartisan Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, introduced to Congress in 2019, which calls for an increase in Medicare support for 3000 new residency positions each year over the next 5 years.

However, additional steps are needed, including enabling advanced practice providers to play a greater role in increasing the health care workforce, Dr. Skorton said.

Pointing out some of the effects of physician shortages, Janis M. Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for the AAMC, noted that high rates of maternal morbidity are partially linked to lack of adequate numbers of physicians in the United States, and a lack of behavioral health specialists has exacerbated effects of the opioid epidemic.

Shortages are already evident in the current pandemic, she added, saying, “Today we see governors calling for retired physicians or physicians from other states to come and help battle the pandemic within their states.”

The report explains that long-term effects on physician numbers from the pandemic likely will include workforce exits because of COVID-19 deaths, early retirements from burnout, or a shift in interest in certain specialties.

Karen Fisher, JD, chief public policy officer for AAMC, said telehealth will also play an important role in bridging gaps in access to care, and its importance has already been seen in this first wave of the pandemic.

She noted that temporary federal waivers have made it easier for those enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to receive telehealth services during the pandemic.

Expanding the access to telehealth permanently will be important in helping to fill gaps, Ms. Fisher said.

Dr. Skorton, Dr. Orlowski, and Ms. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fifteen-year projections for the shortage of primary care and specialty physicians in the United States grew to between 54,000 and 139,000 in the latest annual report by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Those estimates are up from last year’s projections of a shortfall of 46,900-121,900 by 2032.

The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2018 to 2033, was the sixth annual study conducted for the AAMC by the Life Science division of global analytics firm IHS Markit.

This analysis, conducted in 2019, includes supply and demand scenarios but predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a telephone press briefing this morning, David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s president and CEO, told reporters that the pandemic has highlighted the acute effects of physician shortages.

“We’ve seen in stark detail how fragile and quickly overwhelmed America’s health care system truly is, and we’re nowhere near out of the woods with this public health emergency yet,” he said.

The persistent shortages mean people “will have ongoing difficulty accessing the care that they need, especially as we all age.”

Some of the biggest shortages will be seen in non–primary care specialists. Dr. Skorton notes that, during the pandemic, shortages of specialists in hospital settings, including critical care, emergency medicine, pulmonology, and infectious disease, are an urgent concern.

Population trends continue to be the biggest drivers of the shortage. Report authors found that by 2033, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 10.4% from 327 million to 361 million, with wide differences by age.

The under-18 population is expected to grow by 3.9%, whereas the numbers of those aged 65 and older is expected to balloon by 45.1% in that time, thus stoking demand for specialties focused on care for older Americans.

Physician age is also a large factor in the projections. More than two in five currently active physicians will be 65 or older in the next 10 years, according to the report. A wave of retirements will have a large impact on the supply of physicians.

The report explains that the projected shortages remain under predictable scenarios: an increase in the use of advanced practice nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs), more care in alternate settings such as retail clinics, and changes in payment and delivery.

According to the report, the supply of APRNs and PAs is on track to double over the next 15 years (with growth rates varying by APRN and PA specialty).

“At current rates of production, by 2033 APRN supply will grow by 276,000 [full-time equivalents (FTEs)] and PA supply by nearly 138,000 FTEs,” the report states.

However, authors acknowledge there is scant evidence on what effect these numbers will have on demand for physicians.

The report points out that if underserved communities were able to access health care in numbers similar to those without barriers imposed by where they live or what insurance they have, demand could rise beyond the projections in this report by an additional 74,000 to 145,000 physicians.
 

Stemming the shortages

The first step in addressing the shortage, Dr. Skorton said, is assuring a healthy physician pipeline to meet the demand for generations.

“One essential step that we believe Congress must take is to end the freeze that has been in place since 1997 that limits federal support for residency training of new physicians,” Skorton said.

He noted that AAMC supports the bipartisan Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, introduced to Congress in 2019, which calls for an increase in Medicare support for 3000 new residency positions each year over the next 5 years.

However, additional steps are needed, including enabling advanced practice providers to play a greater role in increasing the health care workforce, Dr. Skorton said.

Pointing out some of the effects of physician shortages, Janis M. Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for the AAMC, noted that high rates of maternal morbidity are partially linked to lack of adequate numbers of physicians in the United States, and a lack of behavioral health specialists has exacerbated effects of the opioid epidemic.

Shortages are already evident in the current pandemic, she added, saying, “Today we see governors calling for retired physicians or physicians from other states to come and help battle the pandemic within their states.”

The report explains that long-term effects on physician numbers from the pandemic likely will include workforce exits because of COVID-19 deaths, early retirements from burnout, or a shift in interest in certain specialties.

Karen Fisher, JD, chief public policy officer for AAMC, said telehealth will also play an important role in bridging gaps in access to care, and its importance has already been seen in this first wave of the pandemic.

She noted that temporary federal waivers have made it easier for those enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to receive telehealth services during the pandemic.

Expanding the access to telehealth permanently will be important in helping to fill gaps, Ms. Fisher said.

Dr. Skorton, Dr. Orlowski, and Ms. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fifteen-year projections for the shortage of primary care and specialty physicians in the United States grew to between 54,000 and 139,000 in the latest annual report by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Those estimates are up from last year’s projections of a shortfall of 46,900-121,900 by 2032.

The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2018 to 2033, was the sixth annual study conducted for the AAMC by the Life Science division of global analytics firm IHS Markit.

This analysis, conducted in 2019, includes supply and demand scenarios but predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a telephone press briefing this morning, David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s president and CEO, told reporters that the pandemic has highlighted the acute effects of physician shortages.

“We’ve seen in stark detail how fragile and quickly overwhelmed America’s health care system truly is, and we’re nowhere near out of the woods with this public health emergency yet,” he said.

The persistent shortages mean people “will have ongoing difficulty accessing the care that they need, especially as we all age.”

Some of the biggest shortages will be seen in non–primary care specialists. Dr. Skorton notes that, during the pandemic, shortages of specialists in hospital settings, including critical care, emergency medicine, pulmonology, and infectious disease, are an urgent concern.

Population trends continue to be the biggest drivers of the shortage. Report authors found that by 2033, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 10.4% from 327 million to 361 million, with wide differences by age.

The under-18 population is expected to grow by 3.9%, whereas the numbers of those aged 65 and older is expected to balloon by 45.1% in that time, thus stoking demand for specialties focused on care for older Americans.

Physician age is also a large factor in the projections. More than two in five currently active physicians will be 65 or older in the next 10 years, according to the report. A wave of retirements will have a large impact on the supply of physicians.

The report explains that the projected shortages remain under predictable scenarios: an increase in the use of advanced practice nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs), more care in alternate settings such as retail clinics, and changes in payment and delivery.

According to the report, the supply of APRNs and PAs is on track to double over the next 15 years (with growth rates varying by APRN and PA specialty).

“At current rates of production, by 2033 APRN supply will grow by 276,000 [full-time equivalents (FTEs)] and PA supply by nearly 138,000 FTEs,” the report states.

However, authors acknowledge there is scant evidence on what effect these numbers will have on demand for physicians.

The report points out that if underserved communities were able to access health care in numbers similar to those without barriers imposed by where they live or what insurance they have, demand could rise beyond the projections in this report by an additional 74,000 to 145,000 physicians.
 

Stemming the shortages

The first step in addressing the shortage, Dr. Skorton said, is assuring a healthy physician pipeline to meet the demand for generations.

“One essential step that we believe Congress must take is to end the freeze that has been in place since 1997 that limits federal support for residency training of new physicians,” Skorton said.

He noted that AAMC supports the bipartisan Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, introduced to Congress in 2019, which calls for an increase in Medicare support for 3000 new residency positions each year over the next 5 years.

However, additional steps are needed, including enabling advanced practice providers to play a greater role in increasing the health care workforce, Dr. Skorton said.

Pointing out some of the effects of physician shortages, Janis M. Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for the AAMC, noted that high rates of maternal morbidity are partially linked to lack of adequate numbers of physicians in the United States, and a lack of behavioral health specialists has exacerbated effects of the opioid epidemic.

Shortages are already evident in the current pandemic, she added, saying, “Today we see governors calling for retired physicians or physicians from other states to come and help battle the pandemic within their states.”

The report explains that long-term effects on physician numbers from the pandemic likely will include workforce exits because of COVID-19 deaths, early retirements from burnout, or a shift in interest in certain specialties.

Karen Fisher, JD, chief public policy officer for AAMC, said telehealth will also play an important role in bridging gaps in access to care, and its importance has already been seen in this first wave of the pandemic.

She noted that temporary federal waivers have made it easier for those enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to receive telehealth services during the pandemic.

Expanding the access to telehealth permanently will be important in helping to fill gaps, Ms. Fisher said.

Dr. Skorton, Dr. Orlowski, and Ms. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

Several federal lawmakers on June 30 questioned state policies that require disclosure of mental health treatment as part of medical licensing applications and renewals, citing concerns about creating barriers to psychiatric care for clinicians.

Mental health–related questions on state medical boards’ licensing applications are especially worrisome with many clinicians, including ED staff, immersed in the physical and emotional challenges involved in treating waves of people with COVID-19, lawmakers said during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel.

“We must consider the mental health of the providers on the front lines of the pandemic,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican.

The issue of state medical boards’ disclosure rules was not on the official agenda for the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee’s hearing. And there was no discussion of any specific state medical board’s regulations. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee is working on more than 20 bills related to mental health, including measures intended to aid first responders, such as firemen and emergency medical personnel, and students.

This hearing marked an early stage in the process for a planned package of mental health legislation, said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD, of Texas, who is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. There may be opportunities as this legislation advances to add provisions intended to aid physicians, said Dr. Burgess, who practiced for many years as an ob.gyn. before being elected to Congress.

“We knew that suicide was a problem among our colleagues prior to the onset of this coronavirus epidemic and I know it is more pronounced now,” he said.

Dr. Burgess then solicited specific recommendations from the hearing’s witnesses on steps needed to help clinicians’ mental health.

The first suggestion offered in reply by Jeffrey L. Geller, MD, MPH, appearing in his role as president of the American Psychiatric Association, was that Congress should look for ways to encourage states to alter their licensing procedures.

The hearing comes on the heels of the APA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and more than 40 other groups having jointly signed a statement calling for changes to disclosure rules about mental health.

“Licensing and credentialing applications by covered entities should only employ narrowly focused questions that address current functional impairment,” the statement said. “Additionally, we strongly support The Joint Commission (TJC) statement on Removing Barriers to Mental Health Care for Clinicians and Health Care Staff. TJC ‘supports the removal of any barriers that inhibit clinicians and health care staff from accessing mental health care services.’ ”

Physicians and other clinicians must be able to safely secure treatment for mental or other health issues, just as any other individual,” the groups wrote. “A provider’s history of mental illness or substance use disorder should not be used as any indication of their current or future ability to practice competently and without impairment.”

Also among the signers to this statement was the Federation of State Medical Boards, which has been leading an effort for years to change licensing.

In 2018, the FSMB recommended state medical boards reconsider whether it is necessary to include probing questions about a physician applicant’s mental health, addiction, or substance use on applications for medical licensure or their renewal. While the intent of these questions may be to protect patients, these queries can discourage physicians from getting needed help, the FSMB said.

Several states have since revised or considered revising their license applications and renewals. In May 2020, The Joint Commission urged broader adoption of recommendations from the FSMB and the American Medical Association to limit queries about clinicians’ mental health to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” said The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

Rep. Susan Brooks, an Indiana Republican who is an attorney, suggested there may need to be a broader look at how state officials pose questions about past mental health treatment to people in many professions, including her own.

“It does build on the stigma on accessing services” to know a state or licensing authority may question a professional about receiving treatment for mental health, she said.

Also at the hearing, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, a California Democrat, spoke of her own reaction to seeing a question about mental health treatment while applying for a White House internship. During her college years, Rep. Barragán had to cope with her father’s terminal illness.

“I remember thinking to myself: ‘Jeez, if I end up seeing a mental health expert maybe one day I couldn’t work in government,’ ” she said.

Dear colleagues,

I have the privilege and honor to serve as AGA president as of June 1, 2020. When we look back at the first half of 2020, we will remember the COVID-19 pandemic and the unimaginable loss of life, morbidity, and economic impact it had. We will also remember the grief and anger that have characterized the recent weeks. I hope that the second half of 2020 will be a time that reshapes us for the better and allows us to seize the opportunity to make meaningful changes, in addition to recovering from the impact of the pandemic. The ongoing protests for the past 16 days against police brutality finally have our country recognizing front-and-center injustices facing African Americans.

While recognition of an injustice is a start, it is essentially meaningless unless action is taken to ensure equity in all facets of society. Of particular interest to AGA is access to health care without bias, addressing racial disparities in health care, diversity within the practice of GI, and supporting the careers of diverse researchers. AGA has a diversity policy and a solid history of programs supporting minority physicians and researchers. We know that’s not enough and AGA, with our dedicated committees, staff, and leadership, will continue to implement and assess plans for meaningful improvements. Watch for more on this topic in the future.

In addition, AGA took a pledge with our GI sister organizations to “continue to advocate for diversity in our staff and governance, grant awards to research health care disparities, ensure quality care for all, and work tirelessly to reduce inequalities in health care delivery and access.” We plan to honor this pledge with our own efforts and by making a concerted effort to work with AASLD, ACG, ASGE, DHPA, and other societies, colleagues, and friends.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a major challenge for our practices and to our research community. To all AGA members, please know that we have your back with a stream of practice guidance, business support, advocacy, and funding. You can find these resources collected at www.gastro.org/COVID.

My special thanks to the following AGA members, among several AGA staff and expert participants, for making these resources possible and highly engaging:

• Maria Abreu, who oversees our weekly COVID Connection webinar.
• Shahnaz Sultan and Joseph Lim whose Guidelines and Clinical Practice Update committees have generated evidence-based practice guidance at an incredible pace.
• Vivek Kaul and Vijay Shah who lead regular townhall webinars with division chiefs to share how GI divisions are pivoting to address the numerous current challenges.
• Rhonda Souza, chair of AGA Council, which is already thinking about how to make DDW 2021 a success.

Throughout my time as AGA president, I plan to communicate with you on a regular basis and welcome your input and suggestions. Watch the AGA Community for updates and announcements. Every other month, I plan to host a Townhall with the AGA President webinar on Zoom, where we can gather to hear from AGA leaders and staff on their work. My first webinar is planned for July 10, 2020, at 11 a.m. United States Eastern time. Watch for more info to come.

My goals are to build on what past president Hashem El-Serag has initiated and to work closely with John Inadomi (president-elect), John Carethers (vice president), the AGA Governing Board, committees, and staff. Along these lines, we will work tirelessly to support AGA domestic and international members and the gastroenterology community needs, be it patient care and those who provide the care, basic and clinical scientific discovery, education and training, advocacy, and ABIM recertification. I look forward to working with you and for you throughout the year.

Sincerely,
Bishr Omary, MD, PhD, AGAF
AGA Institute President

Dear colleagues,

I have the privilege and honor to serve as AGA president as of June 1, 2020. When we look back at the first half of 2020, we will remember the COVID-19 pandemic and the unimaginable loss of life, morbidity, and economic impact it had. We will also remember the grief and anger that have characterized the recent weeks. I hope that the second half of 2020 will be a time that reshapes us for the better and allows us to seize the opportunity to make meaningful changes, in addition to recovering from the impact of the pandemic. The ongoing protests for the past 16 days against police brutality finally have our country recognizing front-and-center injustices facing African Americans.

While recognition of an injustice is a start, it is essentially meaningless unless action is taken to ensure equity in all facets of society. Of particular interest to AGA is access to health care without bias, addressing racial disparities in health care, diversity within the practice of GI, and supporting the careers of diverse researchers. AGA has a diversity policy and a solid history of programs supporting minority physicians and researchers. We know that’s not enough and AGA, with our dedicated committees, staff, and leadership, will continue to implement and assess plans for meaningful improvements. Watch for more on this topic in the future.

In addition, AGA took a pledge with our GI sister organizations to “continue to advocate for diversity in our staff and governance, grant awards to research health care disparities, ensure quality care for all, and work tirelessly to reduce inequalities in health care delivery and access.” We plan to honor this pledge with our own efforts and by making a concerted effort to work with AASLD, ACG, ASGE, DHPA, and other societies, colleagues, and friends.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a major challenge for our practices and to our research community. To all AGA members, please know that we have your back with a stream of practice guidance, business support, advocacy, and funding. You can find these resources collected at www.gastro.org/COVID.

My special thanks to the following AGA members, among several AGA staff and expert participants, for making these resources possible and highly engaging:

• Maria Abreu, who oversees our weekly COVID Connection webinar.
• Shahnaz Sultan and Joseph Lim whose Guidelines and Clinical Practice Update committees have generated evidence-based practice guidance at an incredible pace.
• Vivek Kaul and Vijay Shah who lead regular townhall webinars with division chiefs to share how GI divisions are pivoting to address the numerous current challenges.
• Rhonda Souza, chair of AGA Council, which is already thinking about how to make DDW 2021 a success.

Throughout my time as AGA president, I plan to communicate with you on a regular basis and welcome your input and suggestions. Watch the AGA Community for updates and announcements. Every other month, I plan to host a Townhall with the AGA President webinar on Zoom, where we can gather to hear from AGA leaders and staff on their work. My first webinar is planned for July 10, 2020, at 11 a.m. United States Eastern time. Watch for more info to come.

My goals are to build on what past president Hashem El-Serag has initiated and to work closely with John Inadomi (president-elect), John Carethers (vice president), the AGA Governing Board, committees, and staff. Along these lines, we will work tirelessly to support AGA domestic and international members and the gastroenterology community needs, be it patient care and those who provide the care, basic and clinical scientific discovery, education and training, advocacy, and ABIM recertification. I look forward to working with you and for you throughout the year.

Sincerely,
Bishr Omary, MD, PhD, AGAF
AGA Institute President

Dear colleagues,

I have the privilege and honor to serve as AGA president as of June 1, 2020. When we look back at the first half of 2020, we will remember the COVID-19 pandemic and the unimaginable loss of life, morbidity, and economic impact it had. We will also remember the grief and anger that have characterized the recent weeks. I hope that the second half of 2020 will be a time that reshapes us for the better and allows us to seize the opportunity to make meaningful changes, in addition to recovering from the impact of the pandemic. The ongoing protests for the past 16 days against police brutality finally have our country recognizing front-and-center injustices facing African Americans.

While recognition of an injustice is a start, it is essentially meaningless unless action is taken to ensure equity in all facets of society. Of particular interest to AGA is access to health care without bias, addressing racial disparities in health care, diversity within the practice of GI, and supporting the careers of diverse researchers. AGA has a diversity policy and a solid history of programs supporting minority physicians and researchers. We know that’s not enough and AGA, with our dedicated committees, staff, and leadership, will continue to implement and assess plans for meaningful improvements. Watch for more on this topic in the future.

In addition, AGA took a pledge with our GI sister organizations to “continue to advocate for diversity in our staff and governance, grant awards to research health care disparities, ensure quality care for all, and work tirelessly to reduce inequalities in health care delivery and access.” We plan to honor this pledge with our own efforts and by making a concerted effort to work with AASLD, ACG, ASGE, DHPA, and other societies, colleagues, and friends.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a major challenge for our practices and to our research community. To all AGA members, please know that we have your back with a stream of practice guidance, business support, advocacy, and funding. You can find these resources collected at www.gastro.org/COVID.

My special thanks to the following AGA members, among several AGA staff and expert participants, for making these resources possible and highly engaging:

• Maria Abreu, who oversees our weekly COVID Connection webinar.
• Shahnaz Sultan and Joseph Lim whose Guidelines and Clinical Practice Update committees have generated evidence-based practice guidance at an incredible pace.
• Vivek Kaul and Vijay Shah who lead regular townhall webinars with division chiefs to share how GI divisions are pivoting to address the numerous current challenges.
• Rhonda Souza, chair of AGA Council, which is already thinking about how to make DDW 2021 a success.

Throughout my time as AGA president, I plan to communicate with you on a regular basis and welcome your input and suggestions. Watch the AGA Community for updates and announcements. Every other month, I plan to host a Townhall with the AGA President webinar on Zoom, where we can gather to hear from AGA leaders and staff on their work. My first webinar is planned for July 10, 2020, at 11 a.m. United States Eastern time. Watch for more info to come.

My goals are to build on what past president Hashem El-Serag has initiated and to work closely with John Inadomi (president-elect), John Carethers (vice president), the AGA Governing Board, committees, and staff. Along these lines, we will work tirelessly to support AGA domestic and international members and the gastroenterology community needs, be it patient care and those who provide the care, basic and clinical scientific discovery, education and training, advocacy, and ABIM recertification. I look forward to working with you and for you throughout the year.

Sincerely,
Bishr Omary, MD, PhD, AGAF
AGA Institute President

Author’s note: In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

So how are things going? Enjoy part two of this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year.

Did you miss Part 1? Don’t worry, you can read Part 1 here (https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/practice-management-toolbox).

There are several private equity–backed GI practice management groups across the country. Why did you and your colleagues decide to partner with UD last year, and, how is the relationship going to date?
Mark Murphy, MD, UD Physician Executive Committee Member Center for Digestive and Liver Health in Savannah, Ga.

• “We previously investigated other partnerships but felt they really did not bring enough value to make our group stronger or more viable. United Digestive was different. The idea of partnering with like-minded gastroenterologists to become a larger, single-specialty entity, with contract negotiation leverage and economies of scale was appealing and would not be possible as a 10-person group. Further, the partnership represented an opportunity to eliminate debt, minimize future risk to younger partners, and yet also embrace an ability to add new services and physicians.

“There were expected hiccups in the beginning: specifically IT and HR issues, which were remedied appropriately and timely. One month after the partnership was completed, reports started coming out of China about a new viral illness – an illness that telescoped our perspective on the consequences of our decision into a timeline of months rather than years.

“UD’s response to the COVID-19 epidemic has been phenomenal. The organization made the tough, but proper clinical calls that limited risks to patients and staff. They came up with a game plan to salvage fiscal viability – rolling out telemedicine in a matter of days and establishing the manner in which patients with high acuity could still be seen and cared for expediently.

“As a solo GI practice, we would have struggled mightily to survive and might have gone bankrupt. Had we been part of a larger non-GI entity (a hospital or multispecialty group), we might have been pressured to engage in unsafe or unethical practices and not consistent with national societal recommendations. Instead, we found ourselves having active discussions with our GI colleagues about the right path forward.”

How do you feel UD has helped improve the quality of patient care and positively impacted patient satisfaction?
Aja McCutchen, MD

• “Prior to UD, we worked diligently to improve our centralized patient service center, phone trees, and optimize the time and communication between patients, providers, and our staff. We now have tools which help identify and track gaps in communication on all levels. We have been able to improve our MA work flow, shorten wait times, and improve the direct dialogue between our practice and our patients. We have also been able to enhance our ancillary service offerings and expand programs that directly benefit our patients.”

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C

• “I think our quality of care has always been top notch and that thankfully has not been altered. UD has concentrated on workflow optimization, enhanced training to our frontline teams, and improved scheduled processes to decrease patient wait time. UD is also paying closer attention to patient ratings, reviews, and calculating net promotor scores. ”

Have there been any initiatives in the first year which improved the management of the organization?
Elizabeth Escalante, Senior Regional Director of Operations, UD

• “Implementation of a business analytics tool was huge this year. It greatly improved visibility into the information we need to have at our fingertips in order to make data-driven decisions for our business. Drilling this down to the frontline manager has increased our understanding of what it truly takes to run a successful practice, and in turn, increased stakeholder buy-in.”

Lakeeta White, Clinical Office Team Lead, and Alexis Sweeney, Medical Assistant

• “The formation of our MA Advisory Committee has been instrumental in helping standardize best practices across the organization. It is comprised of medical assistants across our geographic footprint, and they provide feedback to the management team regarding process improvements, areas for continued training, and more.”

Though many positives may arise out of change, so can some challenges. Have there been any unforeseen hurdles you experience as a result of the new partnership with PE?
Elizabeth Escalante

• “Overall, I believe the changes to the structure of the practice and reorganization of leadership has been positive. As with any organization, one area of improvement is in communication.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

Author’s note: In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

So how are things going? Enjoy part two of this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year.

Did you miss Part 1? Don’t worry, you can read Part 1 here (https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/practice-management-toolbox).

There are several private equity–backed GI practice management groups across the country. Why did you and your colleagues decide to partner with UD last year, and, how is the relationship going to date?
Mark Murphy, MD, UD Physician Executive Committee Member Center for Digestive and Liver Health in Savannah, Ga.

• “We previously investigated other partnerships but felt they really did not bring enough value to make our group stronger or more viable. United Digestive was different. The idea of partnering with like-minded gastroenterologists to become a larger, single-specialty entity, with contract negotiation leverage and economies of scale was appealing and would not be possible as a 10-person group. Further, the partnership represented an opportunity to eliminate debt, minimize future risk to younger partners, and yet also embrace an ability to add new services and physicians.

“There were expected hiccups in the beginning: specifically IT and HR issues, which were remedied appropriately and timely. One month after the partnership was completed, reports started coming out of China about a new viral illness – an illness that telescoped our perspective on the consequences of our decision into a timeline of months rather than years.

“UD’s response to the COVID-19 epidemic has been phenomenal. The organization made the tough, but proper clinical calls that limited risks to patients and staff. They came up with a game plan to salvage fiscal viability – rolling out telemedicine in a matter of days and establishing the manner in which patients with high acuity could still be seen and cared for expediently.

“As a solo GI practice, we would have struggled mightily to survive and might have gone bankrupt. Had we been part of a larger non-GI entity (a hospital or multispecialty group), we might have been pressured to engage in unsafe or unethical practices and not consistent with national societal recommendations. Instead, we found ourselves having active discussions with our GI colleagues about the right path forward.”

How do you feel UD has helped improve the quality of patient care and positively impacted patient satisfaction?
Aja McCutchen, MD

• “Prior to UD, we worked diligently to improve our centralized patient service center, phone trees, and optimize the time and communication between patients, providers, and our staff. We now have tools which help identify and track gaps in communication on all levels. We have been able to improve our MA work flow, shorten wait times, and improve the direct dialogue between our practice and our patients. We have also been able to enhance our ancillary service offerings and expand programs that directly benefit our patients.”

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C

• “I think our quality of care has always been top notch and that thankfully has not been altered. UD has concentrated on workflow optimization, enhanced training to our frontline teams, and improved scheduled processes to decrease patient wait time. UD is also paying closer attention to patient ratings, reviews, and calculating net promotor scores. ”

Have there been any initiatives in the first year which improved the management of the organization?
Elizabeth Escalante, Senior Regional Director of Operations, UD

• “Implementation of a business analytics tool was huge this year. It greatly improved visibility into the information we need to have at our fingertips in order to make data-driven decisions for our business. Drilling this down to the frontline manager has increased our understanding of what it truly takes to run a successful practice, and in turn, increased stakeholder buy-in.”

Lakeeta White, Clinical Office Team Lead, and Alexis Sweeney, Medical Assistant

• “The formation of our MA Advisory Committee has been instrumental in helping standardize best practices across the organization. It is comprised of medical assistants across our geographic footprint, and they provide feedback to the management team regarding process improvements, areas for continued training, and more.”

Though many positives may arise out of change, so can some challenges. Have there been any unforeseen hurdles you experience as a result of the new partnership with PE?
Elizabeth Escalante

• “Overall, I believe the changes to the structure of the practice and reorganization of leadership has been positive. As with any organization, one area of improvement is in communication.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

Author’s note: In December 2018, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates partnered with Frazier Healthcare Partners to form the practice management company United Digestive (UD). Since that time, colleagues across the country have evaluated their own private equity prospects and partnerships, as well as monitored the progress of our transition.

So how are things going? Enjoy part two of this two-part article where we reached out to several team members from all levels within the organization and asked them to share their personal experiences – both highlights and challenges – during UD’s first year.

Did you miss Part 1? Don’t worry, you can read Part 1 here (https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/practice-management-toolbox).

There are several private equity–backed GI practice management groups across the country. Why did you and your colleagues decide to partner with UD last year, and, how is the relationship going to date?
Mark Murphy, MD, UD Physician Executive Committee Member Center for Digestive and Liver Health in Savannah, Ga.

• “We previously investigated other partnerships but felt they really did not bring enough value to make our group stronger or more viable. United Digestive was different. The idea of partnering with like-minded gastroenterologists to become a larger, single-specialty entity, with contract negotiation leverage and economies of scale was appealing and would not be possible as a 10-person group. Further, the partnership represented an opportunity to eliminate debt, minimize future risk to younger partners, and yet also embrace an ability to add new services and physicians.

“There were expected hiccups in the beginning: specifically IT and HR issues, which were remedied appropriately and timely. One month after the partnership was completed, reports started coming out of China about a new viral illness – an illness that telescoped our perspective on the consequences of our decision into a timeline of months rather than years.

“UD’s response to the COVID-19 epidemic has been phenomenal. The organization made the tough, but proper clinical calls that limited risks to patients and staff. They came up with a game plan to salvage fiscal viability – rolling out telemedicine in a matter of days and establishing the manner in which patients with high acuity could still be seen and cared for expediently.

“As a solo GI practice, we would have struggled mightily to survive and might have gone bankrupt. Had we been part of a larger non-GI entity (a hospital or multispecialty group), we might have been pressured to engage in unsafe or unethical practices and not consistent with national societal recommendations. Instead, we found ourselves having active discussions with our GI colleagues about the right path forward.”

How do you feel UD has helped improve the quality of patient care and positively impacted patient satisfaction?
Aja McCutchen, MD

• “Prior to UD, we worked diligently to improve our centralized patient service center, phone trees, and optimize the time and communication between patients, providers, and our staff. We now have tools which help identify and track gaps in communication on all levels. We have been able to improve our MA work flow, shorten wait times, and improve the direct dialogue between our practice and our patients. We have also been able to enhance our ancillary service offerings and expand programs that directly benefit our patients.”

Kimberly Orleck, PA-C

• “I think our quality of care has always been top notch and that thankfully has not been altered. UD has concentrated on workflow optimization, enhanced training to our frontline teams, and improved scheduled processes to decrease patient wait time. UD is also paying closer attention to patient ratings, reviews, and calculating net promotor scores. ”

Have there been any initiatives in the first year which improved the management of the organization?
Elizabeth Escalante, Senior Regional Director of Operations, UD

• “Implementation of a business analytics tool was huge this year. It greatly improved visibility into the information we need to have at our fingertips in order to make data-driven decisions for our business. Drilling this down to the frontline manager has increased our understanding of what it truly takes to run a successful practice, and in turn, increased stakeholder buy-in.”

Lakeeta White, Clinical Office Team Lead, and Alexis Sweeney, Medical Assistant

• “The formation of our MA Advisory Committee has been instrumental in helping standardize best practices across the organization. It is comprised of medical assistants across our geographic footprint, and they provide feedback to the management team regarding process improvements, areas for continued training, and more.”

Though many positives may arise out of change, so can some challenges. Have there been any unforeseen hurdles you experience as a result of the new partnership with PE?
Elizabeth Escalante

• “Overall, I believe the changes to the structure of the practice and reorganization of leadership has been positive. As with any organization, one area of improvement is in communication.”

Dr. Patel and Dr. Sonenshine are with Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, which is part of United Digestive. They have no conflicts.

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

43% live below their means

Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.

More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.

“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.

A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.

Home size by specialty

Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).

Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.

At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.

About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.

Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.

Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.

Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.

Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.

Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.

For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
 

Cost-cutting strategies

Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.

Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.

A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”

“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.

A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

43% live below their means

Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.

More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.

“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.

A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.

Home size by specialty

Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).

Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.

At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.

About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.

Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.

Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.

Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.

Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.

Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.

For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
 

Cost-cutting strategies

Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.

Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.

A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”

“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.

A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although about two of five physicians report a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, half are under the million dollars and about half believe in living at or below their means, according to the latest Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

43% live below their means

Asked about habits regarding saving, 43% of physicians reported they live below their means. Half said they live at their means, and 7% said they live above their means.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., recommends in the report trying to save 20% of annual gross salary.

More than a third of physicians who responded (39%) said they put more than $2,000/month into tax-deferred retirement or college savings, but Dr. Greenwald acknowledged that this may become more challenging.

“Many have seen the employer match in their retirement plans reduced or eliminated through the end of 2020, with what comes in 2021 as yet undefined,” he said.

A smaller percentage (26%) answered that they put more than $2,000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account each month.

Home size by specialty

Mortgages on a primary residence were the top reasons for debt (63%), followed by car loans (37%), personal education loans (26%), and credit card balances (25%).

Half of specialists and 61% of primary care physicians live in homes with up to 3,000 square feet. Only 7% of PCPs and 12% of specialists live in homes with 5000 square feet or more.

At 22%, plastic surgeons and orthopedists were the most likely groups to have houses with the largest square footage, according to the survey.

About one in four physicians in five specialties (urology, cardiology, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and critical care) reported that they had mortgages of more than $500,000.

Standard financial advice, the report authors note, is that a mortgage should take up no more than 28% of monthly gross income.

Another large source of debt came from student loans. Close to 80% of graduating medical students have educational debt. The average balance for graduating students in 2018 was $196,520, the report authors state.

Those in physical medicine/rehabilitation and family medicine were most likely to still be paying off student debt (34% said they were). Conversely, half as many nephrologists and rheumatologists (15%) and gastroenterologists (14%) reported that they were paying off educational debt.

Only 11% of physicians said they were currently free of any debt.

Most physicians in the survey (72%) reported that they had not experienced a significant financial loss in the past year.

For those who did experience such a loss, the top reason given was related to a bad investment or the stock market (9%).
 

Cost-cutting strategies

Revenue reduction will likely lead to spending less this year as the pandemic challenges continue.

Survey respondents offered their most effective cost-cutting strategies.

A hospitalist said, “Half of every bonus goes into the investment account, no matter how much.”

“We add an extra amount to the principal of our monthly mortgage payment,” an internist said.

A pediatrician offered, “I bring my lunch to work every day and don’t eat in restaurants often.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid uptake of telehealth nationwide in primary care and specialty practices. Over the last few months many practices have actually performed more telehealth visits than traditional in-person visits. The use of telehealth, which had been increasing slowly for the last few years, accelerated rapidly during the pandemic. Long term, telehealth has the potential to increase access to primary care and specialists, and make follow-up easier for many patients, changing how health care is delivered to millions of patients throughout the world.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

What physicians may not consider until their medical care comes into question, however, is the impact this rapid surge in telehealth could have upon their potential liability. Since telehealth will be a regular part of our practices from now on, it is important for clinicians to recognize how telehealth visits are viewed in a legal arena.

As is often the case with technological advances, the law needs time to adapt. Will a health care provider treating a patient using telemedicine be held to the same standard of care applicable to an in-person encounter? Stated differently, will consideration be given to the obvious limitations imposed by a telemedicine exam?
 

Standard of care in medical malpractice cases

The central question in most medical malpractice cases is whether the provider complied with the generally accepted standard of care when evaluating, diagnosing, or treating a patient. This standard typically takes into consideration the provider’s particular specialty as well as all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.¹ Medical providers, not state legislators, usually define the standard of care for medical professionals. In malpractice cases, medical experts explain the applicable standard of care to the jury and guide its determination of whether, in the particular case, the standard of care was met. In this way, the law has long recognized that the medical profession itself is best suited to establish the appropriate standards of care under any particular set of circumstances. This standard of care is often referred to as the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard of care.

Telemedicine standard of care

Despite the fact that the complex and often nebulous concept of standard of care has been traditionally left to the medical experts to define, state legislators and regulators throughout the nation have chosen to weigh in on this issue in the context of telemedicine. Most states with telemedicine regulations have followed the model policy adopted by the Federation of State Medical Boards in April 2014 which states that “[t]reatment and consultation recommendations made in an online setting … will be held to the same standards of appropriate practice as those in traditional (in-person) settings.”² States that have adopted this model policy have effectively created a “legal fiction” requiring a jury to ignore the fact that the care was provided virtually by telemedicine technologies and instead assume that the physician treated the patient in person, i.e, applying an “in-person” standard of care. Hawaii appears to be the lone notable exception. Its telemedicine law recognizes that an in-person standard of care should not be applied if there was not a face-to-face visit.³

Proponents of the in-person telemedicine standard claim that it is necessary to ensure patient safety, thus justifying the “legal fiction.” Holding the provider to the in-person standard, it is argued, forces the physician to err on the side of caution and require an actual in-person encounter to ensure the advantages of sight, touch, and sense of things are fully available.⁴ This discourages the use of telemedicine and deprives the population of its many benefits.

Telemedicine can overcome geographical barriers, increase clinical support, improve health outcomes, reduce health care costs, encourage patient input, reduce travel, and foster continuity of care. The pandemic, which has significantly limited the ability of providers to see patients in person, only underscores the benefits of telemedicine.

The legislatively imposed in-person telemedicine standard of care should be replaced with the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard in order to fairly judge physicians’ care and promote overall population health. The “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard has applied to physicians and other health care professionals outside of telemedicine for decades, and it has served the medical community and public well. It is unfortunate that legislators felt the need to weigh in and define a distinctly different standard of care for telemedicine than for the rest of medicine, as this may present unforeseen obstacles to the use of telemedicine.

The in-person telemedicine standard of care remains a significant barrier for long-term telemedicine. Eliminating this legal fiction has the potential to further expand physicians’ use of telemedicine and fulfill its promise of improving access to care and improving population health.

Mr. Horner (partner), Mr. Milewski (partner), and Mr. Gajer (associate) are attorneys with White and Williams. They specialize in defending health care providers in medical malpractice lawsuits and other health care–related matters. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community Medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow Dr. Skolnik, and feel free to submit questions to him on Twitter: @neilskolnik. The authors have no financial conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Cowan v. Doering, 111 N.J. 451-62,.1988.

2. Model Policy For The Appropriate Use Of Telemedicine Technologies In The Practice Of Medicine. State Medical Boards Appropriate Regulation of Telemedicine. April 2014..

3. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453-1.3(c).

4. Kaspar BJ. Iowa Law Review. 2014 Jan;99:839-59.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid uptake of telehealth nationwide in primary care and specialty practices. Over the last few months many practices have actually performed more telehealth visits than traditional in-person visits. The use of telehealth, which had been increasing slowly for the last few years, accelerated rapidly during the pandemic. Long term, telehealth has the potential to increase access to primary care and specialists, and make follow-up easier for many patients, changing how health care is delivered to millions of patients throughout the world.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

What physicians may not consider until their medical care comes into question, however, is the impact this rapid surge in telehealth could have upon their potential liability. Since telehealth will be a regular part of our practices from now on, it is important for clinicians to recognize how telehealth visits are viewed in a legal arena.

As is often the case with technological advances, the law needs time to adapt. Will a health care provider treating a patient using telemedicine be held to the same standard of care applicable to an in-person encounter? Stated differently, will consideration be given to the obvious limitations imposed by a telemedicine exam?
 

Standard of care in medical malpractice cases

The central question in most medical malpractice cases is whether the provider complied with the generally accepted standard of care when evaluating, diagnosing, or treating a patient. This standard typically takes into consideration the provider’s particular specialty as well as all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.¹ Medical providers, not state legislators, usually define the standard of care for medical professionals. In malpractice cases, medical experts explain the applicable standard of care to the jury and guide its determination of whether, in the particular case, the standard of care was met. In this way, the law has long recognized that the medical profession itself is best suited to establish the appropriate standards of care under any particular set of circumstances. This standard of care is often referred to as the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard of care.

Telemedicine standard of care

Despite the fact that the complex and often nebulous concept of standard of care has been traditionally left to the medical experts to define, state legislators and regulators throughout the nation have chosen to weigh in on this issue in the context of telemedicine. Most states with telemedicine regulations have followed the model policy adopted by the Federation of State Medical Boards in April 2014 which states that “[t]reatment and consultation recommendations made in an online setting … will be held to the same standards of appropriate practice as those in traditional (in-person) settings.”² States that have adopted this model policy have effectively created a “legal fiction” requiring a jury to ignore the fact that the care was provided virtually by telemedicine technologies and instead assume that the physician treated the patient in person, i.e, applying an “in-person” standard of care. Hawaii appears to be the lone notable exception. Its telemedicine law recognizes that an in-person standard of care should not be applied if there was not a face-to-face visit.³

Proponents of the in-person telemedicine standard claim that it is necessary to ensure patient safety, thus justifying the “legal fiction.” Holding the provider to the in-person standard, it is argued, forces the physician to err on the side of caution and require an actual in-person encounter to ensure the advantages of sight, touch, and sense of things are fully available.⁴ This discourages the use of telemedicine and deprives the population of its many benefits.

Telemedicine can overcome geographical barriers, increase clinical support, improve health outcomes, reduce health care costs, encourage patient input, reduce travel, and foster continuity of care. The pandemic, which has significantly limited the ability of providers to see patients in person, only underscores the benefits of telemedicine.

The legislatively imposed in-person telemedicine standard of care should be replaced with the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard in order to fairly judge physicians’ care and promote overall population health. The “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard has applied to physicians and other health care professionals outside of telemedicine for decades, and it has served the medical community and public well. It is unfortunate that legislators felt the need to weigh in and define a distinctly different standard of care for telemedicine than for the rest of medicine, as this may present unforeseen obstacles to the use of telemedicine.

The in-person telemedicine standard of care remains a significant barrier for long-term telemedicine. Eliminating this legal fiction has the potential to further expand physicians’ use of telemedicine and fulfill its promise of improving access to care and improving population health.

Mr. Horner (partner), Mr. Milewski (partner), and Mr. Gajer (associate) are attorneys with White and Williams. They specialize in defending health care providers in medical malpractice lawsuits and other health care–related matters. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community Medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow Dr. Skolnik, and feel free to submit questions to him on Twitter: @neilskolnik. The authors have no financial conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Cowan v. Doering, 111 N.J. 451-62,.1988.

2. Model Policy For The Appropriate Use Of Telemedicine Technologies In The Practice Of Medicine. State Medical Boards Appropriate Regulation of Telemedicine. April 2014..

3. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453-1.3(c).

4. Kaspar BJ. Iowa Law Review. 2014 Jan;99:839-59.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid uptake of telehealth nationwide in primary care and specialty practices. Over the last few months many practices have actually performed more telehealth visits than traditional in-person visits. The use of telehealth, which had been increasing slowly for the last few years, accelerated rapidly during the pandemic. Long term, telehealth has the potential to increase access to primary care and specialists, and make follow-up easier for many patients, changing how health care is delivered to millions of patients throughout the world.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

What physicians may not consider until their medical care comes into question, however, is the impact this rapid surge in telehealth could have upon their potential liability. Since telehealth will be a regular part of our practices from now on, it is important for clinicians to recognize how telehealth visits are viewed in a legal arena.

As is often the case with technological advances, the law needs time to adapt. Will a health care provider treating a patient using telemedicine be held to the same standard of care applicable to an in-person encounter? Stated differently, will consideration be given to the obvious limitations imposed by a telemedicine exam?
 

Standard of care in medical malpractice cases

The central question in most medical malpractice cases is whether the provider complied with the generally accepted standard of care when evaluating, diagnosing, or treating a patient. This standard typically takes into consideration the provider’s particular specialty as well as all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.¹ Medical providers, not state legislators, usually define the standard of care for medical professionals. In malpractice cases, medical experts explain the applicable standard of care to the jury and guide its determination of whether, in the particular case, the standard of care was met. In this way, the law has long recognized that the medical profession itself is best suited to establish the appropriate standards of care under any particular set of circumstances. This standard of care is often referred to as the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard of care.

Telemedicine standard of care

Despite the fact that the complex and often nebulous concept of standard of care has been traditionally left to the medical experts to define, state legislators and regulators throughout the nation have chosen to weigh in on this issue in the context of telemedicine. Most states with telemedicine regulations have followed the model policy adopted by the Federation of State Medical Boards in April 2014 which states that “[t]reatment and consultation recommendations made in an online setting … will be held to the same standards of appropriate practice as those in traditional (in-person) settings.”² States that have adopted this model policy have effectively created a “legal fiction” requiring a jury to ignore the fact that the care was provided virtually by telemedicine technologies and instead assume that the physician treated the patient in person, i.e, applying an “in-person” standard of care. Hawaii appears to be the lone notable exception. Its telemedicine law recognizes that an in-person standard of care should not be applied if there was not a face-to-face visit.³

Proponents of the in-person telemedicine standard claim that it is necessary to ensure patient safety, thus justifying the “legal fiction.” Holding the provider to the in-person standard, it is argued, forces the physician to err on the side of caution and require an actual in-person encounter to ensure the advantages of sight, touch, and sense of things are fully available.⁴ This discourages the use of telemedicine and deprives the population of its many benefits.

Telemedicine can overcome geographical barriers, increase clinical support, improve health outcomes, reduce health care costs, encourage patient input, reduce travel, and foster continuity of care. The pandemic, which has significantly limited the ability of providers to see patients in person, only underscores the benefits of telemedicine.

The legislatively imposed in-person telemedicine standard of care should be replaced with the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard in order to fairly judge physicians’ care and promote overall population health. The “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard has applied to physicians and other health care professionals outside of telemedicine for decades, and it has served the medical community and public well. It is unfortunate that legislators felt the need to weigh in and define a distinctly different standard of care for telemedicine than for the rest of medicine, as this may present unforeseen obstacles to the use of telemedicine.

The in-person telemedicine standard of care remains a significant barrier for long-term telemedicine. Eliminating this legal fiction has the potential to further expand physicians’ use of telemedicine and fulfill its promise of improving access to care and improving population health.

Mr. Horner (partner), Mr. Milewski (partner), and Mr. Gajer (associate) are attorneys with White and Williams. They specialize in defending health care providers in medical malpractice lawsuits and other health care–related matters. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community Medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow Dr. Skolnik, and feel free to submit questions to him on Twitter: @neilskolnik. The authors have no financial conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Cowan v. Doering, 111 N.J. 451-62,.1988.

2. Model Policy For The Appropriate Use Of Telemedicine Technologies In The Practice Of Medicine. State Medical Boards Appropriate Regulation of Telemedicine. April 2014..

3. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453-1.3(c).

4. Kaspar BJ. Iowa Law Review. 2014 Jan;99:839-59.

Prominent female physicians are handing over their social media platforms today to black female physicians as part of a campaign called #ShareTheMicNowMed.

The social media event, which will play out on both Twitter and Instagram, is an offshoot of #ShareTheMicNow, held earlier this month. For that event, more than 90 women, including A-list celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Julia Roberts, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, swapped accounts with women of color, such as “I’m Still Here” author Austin Channing Brown, Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, and #MeToo founder Tarana Burke.

The physician event will feature 10 teams of two, with one physician handing over her account to her black female counterpart for the day. The takeover will allow the black physician to share her thoughts about the successes and challenges she faces as a woman of color in medicine.

“It was such an honor to be contacted by Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, to participate in an event that has a goal of connecting like-minded women from various backgrounds to share a diverse perspective with a different audience,” Minnesota family medicine physician Jay-Sheree Allen, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “This event is not only incredibly important but timely.”

Participants say the goal of the takeovers is to amplify the reach and voice of black women in medicine while crossing boundaries and empowering others to do the same. Only about 5% of all active physicians in 2018 identified as Black or African American, according to a report by the Association of American Medical Colleges. And of those, just over a third are female, the report found.

“I think that as we hear those small numbers we often celebrate the success of those people without looking back and understanding where all of the barriers are that are limiting talented black women from entering medicine at every stage,” another campaign participant, Chicago pediatrician Rebekah Fenton, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Allen says that, amid continuing worldwide protests over racial injustice, prompted by the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody last month, the online event is very timely and an important way to advocate for black lives and engage in a productive conversation.

Prominent female physicians are handing over their social media platforms today to black female physicians as part of a campaign called #ShareTheMicNowMed.

The social media event, which will play out on both Twitter and Instagram, is an offshoot of #ShareTheMicNow, held earlier this month. For that event, more than 90 women, including A-list celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Julia Roberts, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, swapped accounts with women of color, such as “I’m Still Here” author Austin Channing Brown, Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, and #MeToo founder Tarana Burke.

The physician event will feature 10 teams of two, with one physician handing over her account to her black female counterpart for the day. The takeover will allow the black physician to share her thoughts about the successes and challenges she faces as a woman of color in medicine.

“It was such an honor to be contacted by Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, to participate in an event that has a goal of connecting like-minded women from various backgrounds to share a diverse perspective with a different audience,” Minnesota family medicine physician Jay-Sheree Allen, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “This event is not only incredibly important but timely.”

Participants say the goal of the takeovers is to amplify the reach and voice of black women in medicine while crossing boundaries and empowering others to do the same. Only about 5% of all active physicians in 2018 identified as Black or African American, according to a report by the Association of American Medical Colleges. And of those, just over a third are female, the report found.

“I think that as we hear those small numbers we often celebrate the success of those people without looking back and understanding where all of the barriers are that are limiting talented black women from entering medicine at every stage,” another campaign participant, Chicago pediatrician Rebekah Fenton, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Allen says that, amid continuing worldwide protests over racial injustice, prompted by the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody last month, the online event is very timely and an important way to advocate for black lives and engage in a productive conversation.

Prominent female physicians are handing over their social media platforms today to black female physicians as part of a campaign called #ShareTheMicNowMed.

The social media event, which will play out on both Twitter and Instagram, is an offshoot of #ShareTheMicNow, held earlier this month. For that event, more than 90 women, including A-list celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Julia Roberts, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, swapped accounts with women of color, such as “I’m Still Here” author Austin Channing Brown, Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, and #MeToo founder Tarana Burke.

The physician event will feature 10 teams of two, with one physician handing over her account to her black female counterpart for the day. The takeover will allow the black physician to share her thoughts about the successes and challenges she faces as a woman of color in medicine.

“It was such an honor to be contacted by Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, to participate in an event that has a goal of connecting like-minded women from various backgrounds to share a diverse perspective with a different audience,” Minnesota family medicine physician Jay-Sheree Allen, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “This event is not only incredibly important but timely.”

Participants say the goal of the takeovers is to amplify the reach and voice of black women in medicine while crossing boundaries and empowering others to do the same. Only about 5% of all active physicians in 2018 identified as Black or African American, according to a report by the Association of American Medical Colleges. And of those, just over a third are female, the report found.

“I think that as we hear those small numbers we often celebrate the success of those people without looking back and understanding where all of the barriers are that are limiting talented black women from entering medicine at every stage,” another campaign participant, Chicago pediatrician Rebekah Fenton, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Allen says that, amid continuing worldwide protests over racial injustice, prompted by the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody last month, the online event is very timely and an important way to advocate for black lives and engage in a productive conversation.